Share your ideas with us

As a loyal Aftership customer, I am extremely disappointed to learn that integrating a new carrier requires an additional fee—a neither transparent nor customer-friendly policy. Carrier expansion should be a standard improvement to Aftership’s platform, not an extra cost passed onto paying customers. Why This Needs to Change: Improving Aftership Should Be Your Priority, Not an Upsell Adding new carriers benefits all Aftership users. Expanding carrier integrations should be part of Aftership’s ongoing development efforts, not a hidden fee imposed on individual customers. Hidden Costs Undermine Customer Trust Nowhere in Aftership’s pricing model is it clearly stated that carrier integration comes with additional fees. This lack of transparency frustrates users and creates an unexpected financial burden. Loyal Customers Deserve Better Customers who have trusted Aftership for their business operations should not have to pay extra to access a fundamental feature like carrier support. Proposed Solution: Aftership should eliminate extra fees for new carrier integrations and invest in expanding its platform instead of charging individual users. This would be part of its commitment to improving service for all customers. Clear, upfront disclosure of costs should be required if Aftership maintains this fee structure. If Aftership truly values its customers, this change must ensure a fair, transparent, and customer-centric experience.

Allow me to still refund if I choose even if the return request has expired. Now I have to recreate the return request making more work for me.

Currently, AfterShip's webhook outgoing IP list is only available on an HTML documentation page (https://www.aftership.com/docs/tracking/webhook/webhook-outgoing-ips). This makes it impossible to automate IP allowlist management in infrastructure-as-code (IaC) workflows.   Problem: Teams that use IP-based firewalls to secure their webhook endpoints must manually monitor the documentation page for any IP changes and update their firewall rules accordingly. If a change is missed, it can cause webhook delivery failures and broken integrations.   Request: Please publish the webhook outgoing IP list as a dedicated plain-text endpoint — similar to how Cloudflare publishes theirs at https://www.cloudflare.com/ips-v4 — where each IP is returned on a separate line.   This would allow teams to: * Fetch the IP list programmatically as part of their CI/CD or IaC pipelines * Keep firewall allowlists automatically in sync without manual intervention * Avoid service disruptions caused by missed IP changes This is a standard practice among major API providers and would significantly improve the developer experience for customers who manage network security programmatically.

Some customers enter +1 before their phone number when requesting a return or exchange. This causes the shipping label to fail to generate and creates frustration for the customer and extra work for me. I would like the system to correct the phone number to allow successful label generation.

It would be really useful to see how often the Gift Tracking Page is actually being used, separately from the regular tracking page. At the moment, it’s hard to tell uptake or performance unless the page has a unique URL or rely on Google Analytics. Having native reporting in AfterShip would make this much easier. Ideally this would show: - Views and unique visitors for the gift tracking page - How it compares to the standard tracking page - Basic engagement (e.g. CTA clicks) This would help merchants understand adoption and value of the gifting feature much more clearly.

In our business we refund direcly in Shopify for our returns that are made from our online website. It would be nice if the status of Shopify shows refunded or partically refund that Aftership would show the return as resolved. Some of the tracking information has to be put in manaully and we have multiple people on our team and if they do not do it correctly our customers receive emails that their return was not send and is expiring when they have already been refunded. 

Please add the shipping company ACI EXPRESS, which is based in South Korea. They have partnerships with multiple overseas shipping companies, and a lot of merchandise is being shipped through ACI Express to the USA and the Middle East, especially after the implementation of tariffs in the USA.

we provide return shipping label after approving the return request. Our product contains hazarious material, which should be shipped with hazmat label. Aftership doesn't grant the api access of selecting the Hazmat label when auto-generating return shipping label Please fix it

The current capability features a static returns approval notification. There are instances where the approval notification should be customized before being sent to the customer. Currently, the only way of doing this is to change the approval notification for all returns, save, go back to the RMA in question, approve it with the new notification, make sure no other returns are approved, go back to the nofication and amend it to how it was prior and save.   Use case: there may be a specific product that is available for exchange in store, this needs to be checked with the store first so cannot be a hard rule. If the approval notification could be amended on an adhoc basis, you could give the customer the option at the point of approval and avoid back and forth via email.

 I just started using the app today and overall I do like it, but I have a few minor suggestions. 1. A compact mode: right now the list of tracking numbers/packages is very spread out. Consolidating it would make it look cleaner, IMO. 2. Allow me to put tags on them, custom or otherwise. For example I have a few incoming packages and a few outgoing ones. It would be nice to add tags to differentiate them and also filter by them if needed. Hopefully that made sense. Thank you.