iGaming conferences have been talking about LTV, retention, and the shift from CPA to models where a partner's income depends on more than just bringing in a player, for a while now. The logic is simple: an operator cares less about the first deposit itself than about how much a player will bring in over the following months. Hence the interest in Hybrid — a model that blends a fixed payout with RevShare. But the market's own numbers paint a more complicated picture than "CPA is dying." In the end, it comes down to one question: cpa vs revshare — which is better for new igaming operators.

Claim #1. "CPA is gradually becoming obsolete"

The numbers don't back this up yet. According to Catena Media's 2025 annual report, 89% of the company's contracts ran on CPA, 9% on RevShare, and 2% on alternative models. CPA still holds the overwhelming majority.

At the same time, Gambling.com Group's reporting shows a different cut: in 2025, the company's revenue from Hybrid deals came close to matching revenue from pure CPA. These figures shouldn't be compared directly — Catena shows contract structure, Gambling.com shows revenue structure. But together, they show the market isn't moving in one single direction. CPA holds its ground because it's simpler to calculate and forecast, and that's exactly why how to negotiate cpa rates with a traffic provider stays such a practical question even at the earliest stage of a negotiation.

Claim #2. "A low CPA means good traffic"

CPA alone isn't enough to draw that conclusion. Two sources can bring in 1,000 FTDs at the same price and look identical on day one. But 30 to 90 days later, players from one source stay active while the other source's audience doesn't — even though the initial acquisition cost was the same. That's exactly why LTV and post-deposit player behavior get more attention alongside CPA these days. In practice, that's the real answer to how to verify traffic quality from a media buyer: don't trust the number at the front end, look at what happened to the player after the partner got paid.

Claim #3. "Hybrid automatically fixes traffic quality"

Not quite. Hybrid usually means a lower CPA plus a revenue share: instead of a $150 CPA, say, $70 CPA + 15% RevShare. That ties the partner's income more tightly to the traffic's downstream results, but it doesn't make the audience better on its own — a weak source stays weak.

There's a less obvious problem too. Hybrid doesn't guarantee a partner will start thinking about LTV. If the CPA portion already pays off well, it's more profitable to bring in the next player than to invest in the value of the one you already have. Affiliate commentator Gunni puts it plainly: the mere existence of a Hybrid deal doesn't mean the partner's and operator's interests are automatically aligned — and that's one of the classic red flags in igaming traffic partnershipsworth checking before signing anything. So the real question isn't "CPA or Hybrid," but which sources bring in players who stay active longer.

Claim #4. "Comparing the RevShare percentage is enough"

Also no. To understand what is a revenue share in practice, it matters to look past the number in the offer. Two deals with the same 30% RevShare can end up paying out very differently, depending on the base the percentage is calculated from. RevShare is usually tied to NGR, and operators define what gets deducted before that calculation differently — bonuses, taxes, payment fees, chargebacks, admin fees. Understanding how does revenue sharing work in a specific deal matters more than the headline percentage.

There's No Universal Formula for "Good Payback"

Visan Khaniev of Alpha Affiliates told SBC that to judge a traffic source's payback, you need to look at GEO, deal type, and the traffic source itself — not just the payment model. Models also differ in how they split risk, which is exactly why what payment terms are standard in igaming traffic deals doesn't have one single answer: under CPA, the partner gets a fixed payout right away, and a player's long-term performance falls more heavily on the operator's economics; under RevShare, the partner's income depends on how those same players behave over time, too. Hybrid just splits that risk differently — it doesn't remove it. Before signing anything, it's worth asking the same questions to ask a media buying agency before signing that Khaniev points to, instead of anchoring on the quoted percentage alone.

So Is Hybrid Actually Growing?

What's changing isn't one specific model — it's the whole approach to evaluating affiliate traffic. CPA hasn't gone anywhere: Catena Media's contract mix makes that clear. At the same time, Hybrid's role is clearly growing in Gambling.com's numbers.

But there's something that matters more than the contract format itself. AffPapa founder Levon Nikoghosyan, speaking at SBC Summit Lisbon, pointed out that affiliates more often lose money not because they picked the wrong model between CPA and RevShare, but because of a simpler mistake — sending a GEO or an audience to a product that doesn't fit it. Geography, payment methods, and audience gaming preferences matter, and so does the quality of the relationship between the brand and the partner — what Nikoghosyan called "chemistry between brands."

The contract itself doesn't create a high LTV. What drives it is traffic quality, how well the product fits the audience, and what happens to the player after the FTD. CPA, RevShare, and Hybrid just split payout and risk differently between the operator and the partner. So cpa vs revshare — which is better for new igaming operators doesn't have one universal answer — the more interesting question is how partnership deals will keep changing once a single FTD stops being enough to judge traffic quality.