Start with the publisher's decision
We compare networks by eligible traffic, supported formats, payment access and the consequences for a website’s visitors. A network that looks attractive on one dimension may be unsuitable on another. We show those trade-offs instead of assigning an unsupported universal winner.
Use official sources for factual terms
Each review links to the public sources used for its factual fields. A number is recorded only when its definition and scope can be identified. Payment thresholds are attached to payment methods. Publisher revenue is distinguished from advertiser spending and referral commission.
Keep unknowns visible
A page that could not be retrieved does not prove a term is absent. Conflicting numbers are not resolved by choosing the more attractive one. Unknown traffic minimums and payout thresholds remain unknown, with a prompt to check the applicable account terms.
Separate research from testing
The current reviews are based on public documentation. We have not run a controlled live-traffic comparison, verified a withdrawal or audited a network’s reported earnings. Editorial analysis explains suitability; it is not firsthand performance evidence.
Do not manufacture a rating
There are no invented star scores, aggregated user ratings or claims that a network will pay a fixed CPM. If a future review includes an experiment, it will identify the dates, traffic scope, format, method and limits of that experiment.
Model earnings with the right denominator
The calculators use editable user inputs. Page RPM, impression eCPM, app requests, video views and viewer-hours have distinct meanings. Default examples illustrate arithmetic and do not provide platform benchmarks.
Recheck when terms change
Source-check dates belong to the evidence, not a promise that every account receives identical terms. Published changes or conflicting information trigger a new review. Confirm eligibility and account-specific details before applying.