Platform performance benchmarks in iGaming are usually built from a provider's best operators, cherry-picked cohorts, or modelled projections. The data operators actually need — performance across multiple platforms on identical traffic from a real geo — is almost never published.
We published ours. Every number at /results/ came from live Canadian media-buy operations. All four platforms in the benchmark had brands generating over $2.5M GGR at the time of measurement. Turbo Stars data is ours. Competitor data was sourced from operators who ran the same traffic on multiple platforms and shared anonymised dashboards.
Here is what the data shows — and what it means for operators evaluating a platform for paid acquisition.
Entry conversion is where the gap is widest
The most striking finding is in Click → Registration: a 59.5% rate on Revolution versus a range of 6.7% to 33.3% across the four competing platforms on the same traffic. That spread — a factor of 5x at the bottom end — is not a creative or targeting effect. Media-buy traffic in the same geo and demographic is comparable. The difference is the install flow and registration architecture.
Click → First Deposit follows the same pattern: 16.8% on Revolution versus 1.24% to 11.3% across competitors. On a $100K monthly media budget, the difference between 1.24% and 16.8% Click2Dep is not marginal — it is a 13x gap in paying customers generated from the same spend.
Month-1 activation sets the cohort
ARPU in the first month ranges from $80 to $110 across platforms in the dataset. The gap is driven by deposit count: 4.1 deposits per player in month 1 on Revolution versus 2.8 on the nearest competitor with available data. Deposit count in the first month is a direct function of CRM quality, push infrastructure, and bonus trigger logic — not player quality, since all platforms in this dataset were running on comparable Canadian traffic.
Email confirm rate and PWA install rate tell the same story. Revolution shows 51% email confirmation and 44% PWA install rate versus 39.7% and 30.2% on the one competitor with available data. Both metrics directly affect re-engagement capability — the infrastructure that drives deposit count in weeks 2, 3, and 4.
ROI and payback: where it resolves
The full picture resolves in payback month and 12-month ROI. Revolution reaches full media-buy payback in month 5, with 170% ROI at 12 months. The one competitor with published ROI data showed −24.3% at 12 months on the same traffic type.
That is not a small performance gap — it is the difference between a media-buy model that works and one that cannot be scaled regardless of budget. Negative ROI at 12 months means acquisition costs are never recovered from the player cohort. That is a platform problem, not a media problem.
LTV at 12 months: $550 on Revolution versus $435 on the one comparable competitor with available data. The $115 difference per player compounds across every campaign month.
What "no data" means
Several platform columns in our table show "No Data" on specific metrics. This means the metric was not measurable from available operator data — not that the platform scored zero. In some cases, operators running those platforms did not track the metric. In others, the platform does not surface it in dashboards. Either way, an operator cannot manage what is not measured.
The full methodology is published at /results/, including the traffic source, geo, GGR threshold, and data sourcing approach. We made it explicit because that is how any benchmark should be evaluated — including ours.