Game counts, payment integrations and uptime commitments describe platform scope, but they do not establish media-buy payback. A useful comparison also needs measured acquisition and cohort economics.
The anonymised first-party comparison used here reports observations from Tier-1 media-buy cohorts described as exceeding $2.5M GGR. Those scope claims and every number below require dates, denominators, event definitions, traffic equivalence, exclusions and reproducible source exports. They are not industry benchmarks.
1. Click → Registration
C2R links eligible attributed clicks with completed registrations. A lower rate increases cost per registration only if spend, click volume, filtering and attribution remain comparable; it does not establish deposit quality or profit.
The first-party table reports 6.7% to 59.5% across labelled cohorts. The spread does not prove platform architecture caused the difference: campaign, device, market tier, invalid traffic, consent, KYC and event rules may differ. Diagnose with source-matched cohorts and controlled flow tests.
2. Registration → First Deposit
Reg2Dep links completed registrations with first successful deposits inside a stated window. UX, traffic intent, KYC, payment eligibility, product and offer design can all affect it; the rate does not locate the cause by itself.
The table reports 13.7% to 43.2% across labelled cohorts. Treat those as first-party observations pending matched registration and FTD definitions, sample sizes and downstream contribution-margin evidence.
3. ARPU in Month 1
Month-one ARPU is an early revenue view, not a complete payback measure. It needs a documented active-player denominator and NGR or contribution-margin policy, plus bonus, payment, tax and service costs.
The comparison reports $80 to $110. Without the underlying counts, revenue definitions, cohort mix and uncertainty, the difference cannot be translated into a universal payback effect.
4. 10th Deposit Rate
A tenth-deposit rate can describe repeat-deposit depth under a stated horizon, but it does not prove that CRM, notifications or a platform caused the result. Payment access, cohort age, player mix and bonus policy also matter.
The table reports 6.3% and 12.2% for labelled cohorts. Comparison requires one FTD event, deposit deduplication, observation window, eligibility rules, sample sizes and player-protection exclusions.
5. 12-Month LTV and Payback Month
The four metrics above collapse into two numbers: how much does a player return over 12 months, and what month does the campaign pay for itself?
The first-party results table reports 12-month LTV values of $435 and $550, payback months 5 and 6, and one negative-ROI observation. These figures are not comparable until LTV, CAC, contribution margin, currency, censoring and traffic equivalence are documented. They do not establish a market-wide platform ranking.
How to use this framework
Ask for source dates, exact metric formulas, denominators, event and attribution windows, traffic/device mix, exclusions, costs, uncertainty and a reconciled export. Production origin alone does not remove selection or measurement bias.
The Turbo Stars table now states its first-party status and missing publication fields. Until the governed evidence pack exists, use it to frame diligence rather than as an industry benchmark or causal proof.