Revshare vs CPA/CPL vs Media Buys: Why REVS 20% is often more profitable

Viktor -

TL;DR: If you can live without maximum cashflow on day one, a REVS 20% deal tends to outearn Media Buys and most CPL/CPA deals over time, because users you send keep spending and rebuying. Below we explain the models, then share 6 anonymized partner cases with break‑even timelines.

Payout Models

Media Buys (MB)

How it works: Fixed fee for a placement/traffic allocation (monthly or agreed period). Buyer carries performance risk.

  • Pros: Immediate, predictable cashflow.
  • Cons: Hard to price true value; cooperation can stop at any time and your revenue drops to zero until you replace the buyer.

CPL/CPA

How it works: You’re paid per lead/verification or first purchase. Risk is shared.

  • Payment terms: Bi‑weekly with Net‑14 quality window.
  • Pros: Once price per action is set and your traffic is solid, scale can be straightforward.
  • Cons: Placements/sources may be paused or repriced on quality; fraud adjustments can be hectic.

RevShare - REVS 20%

How it works: You receive 20% of purchases from users you refer.

  • Payment terms: Bi‑weekly with Net‑14 quality window.
  • Pros: Over the long run, quality traffic typically outperforms MB/CPL as cohorts rebill and legacy users keep spending.
  • Cons: Requires patience: you’re building a rebill base while also growing new signups.

Key idea: Media Buys/CPL stop paying the moment the deal stops. RevShare keeps paying as long as your referred users remain active spenders.

6 Real-World Cases (Anonymized)

Each example below shows the approximate cumulative break‑even year at which REVS 20% would have matched or exceeded what the partner actually earned on MB/CPL during the same period.

Partner 1 : Break-even ≈ Year 8 (slow build)

Long ramp to surpass MB/CPL. If you must maximize short‑term cashflow to cover fixed costs, MB/CPL is understandable here.

Partner 2: Break‑even ≈ Year 5 (steady compounding)

A faster path: by Year 5, REVS 20% would have overtaken the historical MB payouts.

Partner 3 : Break‑even ≈ Year 3 even after cooperation stopped

We worked 2 years on MB/CPL; traffic later moved elsewhere. Under MB/CPL, revenue stopped instantly. Under REVS, the existing cohort would keep spending, so cumulative REVS 20% would have caught up in 3 years despite the stop.

Partner 4: Break‑even ≈ Year 4

Mid‑term crossover; REVS 20% would start winning from the fourth year onward.

Partner 5: Break‑even ≈ Year 2 (quick win)

A short runway; by Year 2 the partner would have been ahead on REVS.

Partner 6: Break‑even ≈ Year 6 (long‑term compounding)

Slower than average, but still overtakes MB/CPL on a long horizon.

What drives the differences? Cohort quality, retention, ARPPU, rebuy behavior, geo mix, pricing, and consistency of new user flow.

How to choose between Revenue Share, CPA/CPL and MB

  • Choose Media Buys if you urgently need maximum near‑term cashflow and can’t support a ramp period.
  • Choose CPL/CPA if you want action‑based payouts with shared risk and are comfortable with quality reviews/repricing.
  • Choose REVS 20% if you can treat the channel as an asset build cohorts now, harvest rebuys later, and benefit from compounding.

Hybrid path: Start with CPL/CPA or a small MB to fund acquisition, then migrate high‑performing placements to REVS 20% once you verify quality and can handle the ramp. The quality of the spots can be discussed with the Traffic Manager.

Closing words

If you’re optimizing for lifetime value rather than the next invoice, REVS 20% is usually the winner. If cashflow is tight, start with CPL/CPA or a small MB and plan your switch to REVS for placements that prove sticky.