CPA vs revenue share vs hybrid: which deal works for whom

A CPA pays the affiliate once for each customer who meets agreed conditions. Revenue share pays a percentage of the net revenue those customers generate, month after month. A hybrid deal pays a smaller amount of each. The real question is not which is "best" but who carries the risk that a referred customer turns out to be worth more, or less, than expected. CPA puts most of that risk on the operator. Revenue share puts it on the affiliate. Hybrid splits it.

This guide sets out how each model works in practice, what each side gains and gives up, and how CPA qualification differs between real programmes. The programme terms quoted here were read in October 2026. Terms change often, so check the current version before you sign.

The three models as operators write them

Published terms describe the same three options. bet365's terms are a clear example: commission can be revenue share, CPA "as a one-time payment for each new Active Customer", or a combination, each as agreed in writing.

Two points from the terms are easy to miss:

• One model at a time. LeoVegas says you are subject to one payment model per affiliate account (clause 5.1.1). bet365 says you earn only one type of commission for each customer at any one time. If you want CPA on one brand and revenue share on another, ask how the programme handles that before you assume it can.
• The rate is usually not in the public terms. bet365 says the type and rate are confirmed in writing by your account manager. Entain sets commercial terms in an insertion order (IO). 888 makes its commission scheme available through your affiliate account, and LeoVegas points to its affiliate platform. The terms tell you the rules; the money is in a separate document. Get that document.

Who carries which risk

CPA

The operator pays a known amount per qualifying player and keeps everything the player generates afterwards. If the player becomes a long-term customer, the operator wins. If the player deposits once and leaves, the operator has overpaid.

The affiliate gets paid sooner and with more certainty, but earns nothing from a valuable customer's later activity. The affiliate's main risk is qualification: a player who signs up but never meets the conditions earns nothing.

Revenue share

The affiliate earns a percentage of NGR, so the affiliate's income rises and falls with the customers' value. Good customers can pay for years. Poor ones pay little. A month where customers win can produce a negative figure, which is where negative carryover matters.

The operator pays only for value it actually received, but gives up a share of that value for as long as the deal runs. The affiliate also carries risks the operator controls: how NGR is defined, whether the rate falls over time, and whether volume targets apply.

Hybrid

A hybrid pays part upfront and part over time. It gives the affiliate some cash flow and gives the operator some protection if customers turn out to be low value. William Hill's terms show how the two parts can interact: in a hybrid month where the revenue share is negative, the payment is the CPAs due less the negative NGR for that month (clause 8.4). Ask whether your hybrid works like that.

Operator view

CPA is a known acquisition cost, which makes it easy to budget, but it pays the same for a customer who leaves after one deposit as for one who stays for years. If you offer CPA, the qualifying conditions are your protection. Make them clear and enforce them consistently, or the deal will reward volume over quality.

Affiliate view

Revenue share can pay far more over time, but only if you can wait for it and the terms let it run. Before you choose it, read the NGR definition, the carryover rule and any clause that reduces the rate over time or below a volume target. A headline percentage on its own tells you very little.

A worked example (illustrative)

The figures below are made up, chosen to make the arithmetic easy. They are not market rates and do not describe any programme.

For example, an affiliate sends 100 customers who all qualify. Compare three deals:

• CPA: £100 per qualifying customer.
• Revenue share: 30% of NGR.
• Hybrid: £50 per qualifying customer plus 15% of NGR.

Now imagine two outcomes for the same 100 customers. In the strong case they generate £60,000 NGR over their lifetime. In the weak case they generate £20,000.

What the example shows:

• The break-even point. Revenue share at 30% pays more than a £100 CPA only once the cohort's NGR passes about £33,333. Below that, CPA is better for the affiliate. Above it, revenue share is.
• Timing. The CPA arrives soon after customers qualify. The revenue share arrives in pieces, possibly over years, and some of it may never arrive if the customers stop playing.
• Variance. Under CPA the affiliate's income is the same in both cases and the operator absorbs the difference. Under revenue share the affiliate's income moves three to one between the cases. Hybrid sits in between for both sides.
• The NGR definition changes everything. The same customers can produce different NGR at different programmes, because each deducts different costs. See NGR explained.

How CPA qualification differs between programmes

"CPA" sounds standard. The conditions behind it are not. This is what each programme's published terms say a customer must do before a CPA is paid.

Three things stand out. Deposit windows range from 60 days to six months. Some programmes set a wagering or activity baseline on top of the deposit, and in several cases that baseline is agreed individually rather than published. And LeoVegas treats the first 50 referred players under a CPA deal as a test phase, after which it may change pricing or volumes (clause 5.3.2).

When a CPA can be withheld

FDJ United (clause 6.7) and LeoVegas (clause 5.3.3) both reserve the right to withhold CPA for accounts identified as bonus abuse, suspended, closed for fraud, self-excluded, or "for any other reasonable reason". Super Partners discounts a CPA customer after a chargeback and deducts the earlier CPA from future payments. Affiliates should ask how "reasonable reason" is applied in practice. Operators should be ready to show the evidence when they use it.

What revenue share looks like in published terms

Most programmes agree rates privately. The five that publish a default or headline rate (LeoVegas, Rank, William Hill, Super Partners and Entain's Gamebookers) range from 15% (William Hill bingo and poker) to 40% (LeoVegas's top tier). The fine print matters as much as the number:

• Tiers. LeoVegas publishes a tiered revenue share from 25% to 40% by monthly net revenue, with new affiliates starting at 25%. Rank publishes 25% to 35%.
• Volume reductions. Super Partners' default 25% falls in steps to 0% if fewer than 30, 60, 90 or 120 new active customers are referred over 6, 12, 18 or 24 months. LeoVegas cuts to 20% if fewer than 30 FTDs arrive in 6 months and to 10% below 60 in 12 months (clause 5.4.12).
• Time limits. Entain's rate on a customer drops at the third anniversary of registration to between 5% and 15% unless agreed otherwise (clause 9.5). Rank pays until the fifth anniversary of registration unless agreed otherwise (clause 7.1). 888 pays poker revenue share for at most 24 months (clause 5.8).
• Rate changes. Entain gives at least 15 days' written notice and applies changes only to customers referred afterwards (clause 9.9). LeoVegas may change rates "at any time and without prior notice" (clause 5.1.2).

"Lifetime" revenue share is therefore not always lifetime. Read the clauses.

Which deal works for whom

CPA tends to suit affiliates who need predictable cash flow, send traffic in bursts (a campaign, a tournament, a paid push), or cannot wait months to recover their costs. It suits operators that know their customer value well enough to price a CPA and want a fixed acquisition cost.

Revenue share tends to suit affiliates with steady, loyal audiences who can carry uneven months and who have read the NGR and carryover terms. It suits operators that would rather pay for proven value than for sign-ups.

Hybrid tends to suit both sides when neither knows yet how valuable the traffic will be: a new affiliate, a new market or a new brand. It is also a sensible step before moving to pure revenue share once both sides have data.

What to do next

• Get the rate in writing, in the document your programme uses (account manager confirmation, IO or platform).
• For CPA: write down the deposit window, minimum deposit, any wagering baseline, and the grounds for withholding.
• For revenue share: read the NGR definition, the carryover rule, any volume reductions and any time limit on each customer.
• For hybrid: ask whether negative revenue share is netted against CPA.
• Run your own numbers with a strong and a weak case before you choose, and use the deal terms checklist before you sign.