CPA vs revenue share vs hybrid deals in iGaming
Every affiliate deal in iGaming answers one question: who carries the risk that a referred player turns out to be worth less than expected? CPA, revenue share and hybrid structures answer it differently, and the right choice depends on how well you can predict player value in a given market. The comparison below is written from the affiliate side, by the team behind Primestake’s single-question casino comparisons in Sweden.
How each model pays
| Model | What the operator pays | When it is paid | Who carries value risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| CPA | A fixed amount per qualifying player | Once, after the player meets the qualifying criteria | Operator |
| Revenue share | A percentage of net gaming revenue (NGR) from referred players | Monthly, for as long as the agreement says | Affiliate |
| Hybrid | A lower fixed amount plus a lower percentage of NGR | Upfront part once, share monthly | Shared |
CPA
A cost per acquisition deal pays a fixed fee when a referred player meets the qualifying criteria in the contract. The criteria matter more than the headline amount. A CPA that triggers on a first deposit of any size is a very different commitment from one that requires a minimum deposit plus a minimum amount wagered. We cover how to set those criteria in our piece on first-time depositors.
CPA suits an operator that knows its player value well in a market and wants a predictable acquisition cost. It also suits a launch, when you want volume quickly and are willing to pay for certainty. The weakness is that you pay the same for a player who deposits once and leaves as for one who stays for years, so CPA deals attract traffic sources that are good at producing first deposits and indifferent to what happens after.
Revenue share
A revenue share deal pays the affiliate a percentage of the NGR its players generate. The definition of NGR is where most disputes start. Contracts usually deduct some combination of bonuses, gaming taxes, payment fees, chargebacks and platform or game supplier fees from gross gaming revenue before the percentage is applied. Two programmes quoting the same percentage can pay very different amounts depending on that list.
Revenue share aligns the affiliate with player quality, because a player who churns after one session earns the affiliate almost nothing. It also pushes cost into the future, which helps cash flow at launch. The cost is that you keep paying for players long after the affiliate’s work is done, unless the contract limits the term. Losing months create a separate question, covered in our article on negative carryover.
Hybrid
A hybrid deal combines a reduced CPA with a reduced revenue share. The affiliate gets some certainty on each player, and the operator keeps part of the payout tied to long-term value. Hybrids are common where both sides want a working relationship but neither is confident about player value yet, for example in a new market or with a new traffic source.
Choosing between them
The useful question is not which model is cheaper in general, but which one prices your uncertainty correctly.
| Situation | Model that usually fits | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Mature market, stable player value data | CPA | You can price the player and want a fixed cost |
| New market or new product | Revenue share or hybrid | Value is unknown, so share the risk |
| Traffic source with no history | Hybrid or capped CPA | Limits exposure while you collect data |
| Long-term content partner in a regulated market | Revenue share | Rewards retention, which the partner influences through accurate expectations |
| Paid media affiliate with high volume | CPA with strict qualifying criteria | Volume is predictable, quality needs a floor |
Caps and tiers
CPA deals often carry a monthly cap on the number of paid players, and revenue share deals often use tiers where the percentage rises with volume. Caps protect your budget but can cause affiliates to stop promoting you once the cap is hit mid-month. Tiers reward growth but can be gamed by pushing low-value players to cross a threshold. If you use tiers, base them on qualifying players or NGR rather than raw registrations.
Market rules change the maths
In some regulated markets, the content an affiliate can show changes conversion. In Sweden, a licence holder may only offer a bonus on the player’s first gambling occasion, under Chapter 14, § 9 of the Gambling Act. In Ontario, public advertising of bonuses and inducements is prohibited outside the operator’s own site and consented direct marketing, under AGCO Standard 2.05. Where the welcome offer cannot be the main hook, comparison content on withdrawal times, payment methods and game range carries more weight, and the player mix that results tends to differ from bonus-led traffic. That should inform which model you offer.
Contract points to settle before signing
- The exact qualifying criteria for CPA, including minimum deposit, wagering and the time window
- The full list of deductions in the NGR definition
- Whether negative balances carry over between months, and for how long
- The duration of revenue share, including what happens if the agreement ends
- Payment terms, currency and the reporting the payment is based on
- Your right to withhold payment for fraudulent or non-compliant traffic, with a defined process
- Compliance obligations that apply to the affiliate’s marketing in each market
How we work
Primestake runs Swedish comparison sites for players choosing between casinos licensed by Spelinspektionen. We work on revenue share, CPA or hybrid terms, directly with operators or through their affiliate network. See deal terms Primestake offers casino operators or write to partners@primestake.org.