About This Site
This site publishes one thing: publisher-side analysis of the advertising platforms that will pay for traffic on an explicit website. It exists because the alternative available to most publishers is a listicle assembled from other listicles, where a payout threshold quoted in 2019 gets copied forward for six years without anyone opening the platform's own help centre. Everything here is written from the seat of someone who owns the inventory and wants to know when the money lands, not from the seat of someone selling ad space. The site went live in 2026 and is operated from the United Kingdom, with editorial focus on the United States market. The working method behind every figure on this site is set out in full on how we check figures.
What the site covers, in concrete terms
Four subject areas account for almost everything published here. The first is payout mechanics: the minimum withdrawal on each individual rail, the fee attached to that rail, the hold period, the release day, and the number of days between an impression being served and money arriving in an account. The second is format economics, meaning which of the six formats that monetize explicit traffic suit which layout, and what frequency settings do to session length over a three-month horizon. The third is supply-chain plumbing: OpenRTB, oRTB and XML feed connections, passback chains, ads.txt declarations, and the reason a missing entry in a text file shows up in a dashboard as low fill and never as an error. The fourth is the compliance layer that now sits between a US publisher and their own audience, because state age-verification statutes change a site's GEO mix and a changed GEO mix changes effective revenue without any platform doing anything.
Each of those areas produces claims that can be checked against a document. That constraint decides what gets published. A statement about a payout floor points to a help-centre page. A statement about a court decision points to the opinion. A statement about frequency capping is presented as judgement, because that is what it is.
What the site deliberately does not cover
Live bid rates by GEO and format are visible only inside a platform dashboard after registration, and this site does not estimate them. Publishing an invented CPM would be the single most damaging thing we could do, because it is the number a publisher would plan revenue against. Where a rate appears here it is labelled as a segment average with the period it refers to, and the text says plainly that it is not a measurement from a specific account.
Services that resell visit packages are out of scope entirely. They are a different product with a different failure mode, and mixing them into a comparison of ad networks would mislead anyone reading the table. Content production, traffic acquisition tactics and search optimization for explicit sites are also outside what this site does. The focus is narrow on purpose: a site that covers everything covers nothing to a useful depth, and depth is the only thing that distinguishes this from the listicles.
How the site is funded, stated plainly
The site earns through a referral relationship with AdsCompass, one of the seven platforms in the comparison table. The buttons on this site carry tracking parameters identifying this domain as the referring source, and if a reader registers a publisher account after following one, the site may receive compensation. Registration terms are identical whether a reader arrives through this site or types the address directly; the parameters record a referral and change nothing about the account.
The consequence that matters is what the relationship does not buy. It does not buy a rating, because the tables carry no ratings. Competitors stay where they are: six other platforms appear alongside with their own figures intact. Silence about the partner's weaknesses is not on offer either, and AdsCompass has the highest e-wallet payout floor of the seven platforms listed, and Net30 is its default on RTB accounts, and both facts appear on the main page in the same table as everything else. A comparison that hid those would be worth nothing to a publisher, and a publisher who noticed the omission would be right to leave. The full constraint set is written down in the editorial policy, which also covers what we will not accept commercially.
Who writes it and who is accountable
All analysis is written by Smith Jones, a performance media buyer who has worked both sides of this market for eleven years. Every analytical page is bylined, carries a verification date, and states where the author could not confirm something. Judge the site on that last habit. Three flagged gaps are live on the main page right now. Two are cases where a platform's own pages contradict each other on a withdrawal threshold. The third is a figure marked unverified because it has circulated through industry write-ups since roughly 2017 with no confirmation from the platform.
We do not employ a separate fact-checking desk, and pretending otherwise would be the kind of institutional theatre this site is meant to avoid. What exists instead is a documented source hierarchy, a rule that a figure appearing only in a secondary source gets labelled and never asserted, and a public record of the date each page was last read against platform documentation.
Corrections and how errors get handled
Payout terms change without announcements, and help centres are edited without revision notes. That produces errors on a page like this one, and the honest position is to plan for them. A report that arrives with the platform document that contradicts a published figure is actioned as a priority, because a reader may be planning cash flow around the number. Where a platform's own pages disagree with each other, the correction is normally to publish both figures with a note. Picking one would read as decisive and would be a guess.
Verification dates are updated whenever a figure on a page changes, so a reader can tell how current the page is without having to trust an assertion of freshness. Nothing is quietly swapped and left looking as though it always read that way.
Jurisdiction and legal position
The site is operated from the United Kingdom and governed by the laws of England and Wales, as set out in the terms and conditions. Its editorial subject is the United States, where the age-verification legislation discussed on the main page applies. Nothing published here is legal, tax or financial advice, and whether a particular site falls within a particular statute is a question for a qualified lawyer in the relevant jurisdiction rather than for an advertising analyst.
The site publishes no explicit material and is intended for adults working in this segment professionally. If something here is wrong, out of date, or missing a source, write to the editorial desk through the contact page and include the document that shows it. That is the fastest route to getting it fixed.
The comparison itself lives on Adult Ad Networks, which is where the seven platforms, their payout floors by rail and the flagged contradictions are set out. Data handling on this site is covered by the privacy policy, and the absence of tracking is explained in the cookie policy — a claim you can verify in your own browser in about thirty seconds.