CPA vs Revenue Share vs Hybrid: iGaming Affiliate Deals

CPA pays an iGaming affiliate a fixed amount for each acquisition that meets the contract's conditions. Revenue share ties commission to a contractual revenue base and percentage. Hybrid combines an acquisition fee with that revenue-based component. The comparison depends on customer qualification, deductions, adjustments and how long commission remains payable.

For an affiliate publisher or an operator's acquisition team, the rate is only the starting point. A first-time depositor might not qualify for CPA. A revenue-share percentage might apply after substantial deductions. An amount earned in a report might still be below the payment threshold.

This comparison covers affiliate remuneration, not the operator's full acquisition cost. Our separate guide to FTD, CAC, LTV and payback addresses that operator-side question. Public programme terms were checked on 3 October 2026. All calculations here are hypothetical, not market benchmarks or forecasts, and the contract-review questions are not legal advice.

What CPA, revenue share and hybrid pay for

CPA, or cost per acquisition, is a one-off affiliate fee for an accepted acquisition. The contract determines whether that means a deposit, a depositing customer who has wagered, or another qualified event. Repeated deposits by the same customer do not automatically create new payable acquisitions.

Revenue share, often shortened to RevShare, is a percentage of revenue attributable to referred customers under the agreement. Its value changes with the defined revenue base and the period over which those customers remain commissionable. Deposits alone are not that revenue base.

A hybrid commission combines both components within one agreed structure. It is not necessarily two separate deals layered on top of each other. Betsson Group Affiliates' commission page offers all three models and notes that percentages vary by brand and over time. That establishes available structures, not the terms a particular affiliate will receive.

These formulas describe the components, not a universal payment rule. A tiered percentage, minimum activity condition or signed amendment can change the result. Record the applicable schedule alongside the programme's general terms.

Start with the acquisition that actually qualifies

Build a reconciliation from tracked registrations to first deposits, then to accepted commissionable acquisitions. Keep the reason for each exclusion. This lets both parties distinguish a tracking failure from a contractual rejection instead of arguing over one headline conversion total.

Ask when the deposit must occur, which brands and countries count, how an existing group customer is treated, and whether verification or wagering conditions apply. Separate the registration date, qualifying event date, validation date and payment date. They need not fall in the same reporting month.

Attribution also needs its own specification. Document the approved tracking link, attribution window, competing referrals and process for missing records. The signed arrangement should explain which evidence resolves a disagreement. Do not assume that a publisher's click count is sufficient proof of a payable customer.

For our worked example, 50 referred people make a first deposit, but only 40 pass an invented CPA qualification rule. Paying on all 50 would overstate the assumed €120 CPA commission by €1,200. That difference comes from eligibility, before any discussion of customer profitability.

Read the revenue base before the percentage

The same percentage can produce different commissions if the contracts deduct different costs. Begin with the exact definition of net revenue or commissionable revenue. Our GGR, GGY and NGR explainer explains why these labels should not be treated as interchangeable accounting measures.

For a sample settlement worksheet, separate gross gaming revenue from bonuses, taxes, fees and later adjustments. Identify which deductions are actual costs, allocated charges or estimates, and where the agreement authorises each one. Check whether an item already deducted upstream appears again downstream.

Ask for enough reporting detail to reproduce the commission, using appropriately restricted or pseudonymous identifiers rather than unnecessary personal data. A total labelled NGR is not sufficient to explain a deduction dispute. An opening balance, revenue base, rate, adjustment lines and closing payable balance give a more useful reconciliation.

This article's numerical comparison assumes one shared €8,000 commissionable base. It does not copy either programme's calculation or claim that their bases are equivalent. A real comparison should first normalise the customer scope and revenue definitions, or leave the difference explicit when it cannot be normalised.

Three commission calculations on the same cohort

Assume one hypothetical cohort observed for 90 days. Of its 50 first-time depositors, 40 qualify for the acquisition component. For comparison only, all three offers cover those same 40 customers, and their cumulative gross gaming revenue is €12,000. Invented contract deductions total €4,000, leaving €8,000 of commissionable revenue.

Assume no negative opening balance, tiers, caps, clawbacks or currency conversion. The cohort remains eligible for the full window. Figures exclude VAT and the affiliate's own operating costs. These are cumulative earned commissions before any payment threshold or settlement delay, not cash received on day 90.

CPA produces the largest earned amount in this example. It does not establish that CPA is always the better deal. The €120 fee and both percentages are invented inputs, and the revenue-share components may continue to earn beyond the observation window if the agreement permits.

With the customer count and other assumptions unchanged, the 25% revenue-share offer reaches €4,800 at €19,200 of cumulative commissionable revenue: €4,800 divided by 0.25. The hybrid reaches €4,800 at €16,000: subtract its €2,400 acquisition component, then divide the remaining €2,400 by 0.15.

These are algebraic equality points, not estimates of when they will occur. The hybrid and pure revenue-share offers meet each other at €24,000 of commissionable revenue. None of those thresholds establishes whether the affiliate is profitable; that requires its own costs. Nor do they value money received at different times or commission rights lost on termination.

Before negotiating, replace the invented inputs with a written offer and a traceable revenue scenario. If the data only covers 90 days, show those 90 days. Any extension should be labelled as a forecast, with its assumptions and separate low-revenue or early-termination cases.

Negative carryover is different from a clawback

Negative carryover is an accounting rule that transfers a negative commissionable balance into a later reporting period. The contract determines the level at which it applies: an individual customer, brand, product or wider account. A statement about one level should not be assumed to cover the others.

Consider a separate invented example with 30% revenue share and a monthly commissionable base of minus €2,000 followed by plus €5,000. Under a simple pooled carryover rule, the first balance offsets the second, leaving €3,000 and €900 commission in month two. Under a simple monthly reset with no exceptions, month one pays zero and month two pays €1,500.

That €600 difference depends entirely on the assumed offset rule. It is not a prediction of either named programme's settlement. Ask whether positive and negative balances can be combined across customers or products, and whether there are high-roller exceptions. Save the answer with the applicable clause.

A clawback corrects or recovers commission previously credited or paid. It can affect a CPA deal even when revenue-share carryover is irrelevant. In the first hypothetical calculation, reversing one €120 acquisition fee would reduce the earned total from €4,800 to €4,680. Check the permitted reasons, supporting evidence, dispute process and whether recovery occurs through an offset or a direct repayment demand.

Two public contracts show why the details matter

Betsson Group Affiliates

The Betsson Group Affiliates agreement displayed Version 51, a “12th June” heading without a year, and a separate amendment statement dated 3 February 2026 when checked. Those labels do not establish one unambiguous revision date.

Clause 1.17 gives CPA and CPA-containing hybrid customers a 60-day registration-to-first-deposit window, subject to the applicable minimum deposit and exclusions. Clause 6.1 states a no-negative-carryover policy unless otherwise notified, with clause 6.9's high-roller exception: at least €10,000 of negative commissionable revenue from a player in a calendar month can trigger player-specific offsets against future commission.

Clauses 6.2 and 6.6 separately address monthly payments when commission exceeds €50 and a 15-day window to dispute the balance. These provisions illustrate qualification, exceptions and settlement controls; they are not a complete assessment of every brand or schedule.

bet365 Partners

The bet365 Partners ROW agreement, labelled 1 April 2026, allows CPA, revenue share or a combination confirmed in writing. ROW is the version reviewed here, not the separate North America agreement.

Clause 5.1 includes deductions such as customer winnings, duties or taxes, promotions, payment charges and administration costs. Clause 5.2 allows negative vertical commission balances to offset available commission and permits recovery of erroneous or disqualified payments. This wording should not be expanded into an assumed rule for every future month's balance.

Clause 6.1 requires at least 15 Active Customers for payout eligibility; an Active Customer places stakes or plays with deposited funds. Clause 7.2 states that future referral commission is not payable after termination. A negotiated rate therefore needs to be read with payment eligibility and continuing entitlement, not in isolation.

These are two public contract examples, not programme recommendations or a market survey. Negotiated schedules, territory-specific provisions and later changes can alter an affiliate's position. Obtain the applicable documents before relying on a clause in a live deal.

A contract checklist before accepting an offer

Keep a dated copy of the general terms, market schedule and commission confirmation. Complete these checks against the documents, recording unanswered questions rather than filling gaps with assumptions.

1. Identify the contracting legal entity, permitted brands, territories and approved traffic channels.
2. Write down the acquisition definition, time window, validation process and exclusion reasons.
3. Record attribution rules and the evidence used to resolve missing or competing referrals.
4. List the revenue-base deductions, their calculation method and reporting detail.
5. Confirm the rate, tiers, caps and whether changes affect existing customers or only future referrals.
6. Describe negative offsets, their pooling level and any customer-specific exceptions.
7. Document clawbacks, supporting evidence, dispute deadlines and repayment methods.
8. Separate earned commission from payout eligibility, thresholds, invoicing, verification and currency conversion.
9. Check activity requirements, suspension, termination and treatment of existing customers and accrued amounts.
10. Test one settlement statement against the offer, retaining the inputs and explaining each adjustment.

Marketing compliance belongs in this review. In Great Britain, the Gambling Commission's third-party responsibility provision makes licensees responsible for contracted activities and requires contractual controls, including termination rights for relevant breaches. That is a Great Britain requirement, not a worldwide affiliate rule.

For direct marketing, its affiliate guidance addresses data-protection obligations and preventing marketing to self-excluded customers. Our Great Britain affiliate marketing guide covers those advertising and control questions separately. A favourable commission schedule does not remove them.

Choosing CPA, revenue share or hybrid

CPA may suit a publisher that needs payment tied to validated acquisitions and prefers less exposure to future revenue variation. Its weaknesses are qualification uncertainty, possible reversals and a fee that does not automatically participate in later revenue. Test how many of the publisher's tracked depositors would actually qualify.

Revenue share may suit an affiliate able to fund the wait for commission and review continuing customer economics. Its weaknesses include variation in revenue, deductions, offsets and contractual entitlement. A large percentage is less persuasive when the publisher cannot reconcile the base or establish the duration of its rights.

Hybrid can combine earlier acquisition remuneration with continuing revenue participation, but both components may be smaller than standalone offers. Run the combined calculation and each component's conditions. Rejecting or accepting hybrid solely because it contains two payment types skips the commercial comparison.

For CPA vs revenue share vs hybrid, the useful next step is a sample settlement, not a universal winner. Compare the same eligible customers over the same window, then test lower revenue, disqualifications and termination. Retain uncertainty about the months you cannot observe. Our iGaming traffic-source comparison places affiliate acquisition alongside SEO and paid media without treating the channels as equivalent.

Frequently asked questions

Is an FTD automatically a payable CPA customer?

No. FTD describes a first deposit, while a payable acquisition must satisfy the applicable contract. Check the deposit threshold, timing, customer eligibility, attribution and validation conditions. Reconcile tracked depositors with accepted acquisitions and retain exclusion reasons. Do not multiply every reported FTD by the CPA fee unless the agreed rules support it.

Is revenue share calculated on deposits?

Revenue share applies to the revenue base defined in the affiliate agreement, not automatically to deposits. Customer winnings and specified costs can change that base. Ask for the calculation and adjustment lines used in settlement. A deposit total alone cannot reproduce commission, and a financial-reporting NGR figure may use a different definition.

Does no negative carryover mean commission can never be reduced?

No. A carryover policy concerns negative balances across periods; it does not necessarily prevent clawbacks, deductions or exceptions. Betsson Group Affiliates' terms, for example, include a high-roller exception. Check which customers and products can be offset, and read payment corrections separately before treating a monthly reset as unconditional protection.

Is hybrid always better than CPA or revenue share?

No. A hybrid deal combines two components whose rates may differ from standalone offers. Compare the combined earned amount using the same eligible cohort, revenue definition and observation window. Then test adjustments and continuing entitlement. Without those common inputs, adding an upfront payment and a percentage does not establish a better return.

Does revenue share continue after the affiliate contract ends?

Only if the applicable agreement preserves that entitlement. Do not infer continuing payments from the model's name or a reference to customer lifetime. Review termination, suspension, activity requirements and treatment of existing customers and accrued commission. Public terms and a negotiated schedule must be read together before valuing future revenue.