Platform comparisons can suffer from selection, cohort and measurement bias whether they use projections or production dashboards. “Live data” is provenance, not proof of comparability.
The results page records anonymised first-party observations across four labelled platform cohorts, described as Tier-1 media-buy brands above $2.5M GGR over 18 months. Reuse requires the underlying dates, counts, metric definitions, traffic equivalence, exclusions, costs and reproducible source exports.
Here is what the reported data suggests and what it cannot establish without that evidence pack.
Entry conversion is where the gap is widest
The table reports 59.5% Click → Registration for the Turbo Stars-labelled cohort and 6.7% to 33.3% for comparison cohorts. That spread does not exclude creative, targeting, device, invalid-traffic, consent, KYC or event-definition effects, and therefore does not isolate registration architecture.
It also reports 16.8% Click → First Deposit versus 1.24% to 11.3%. Arithmetic scenarios can translate rates into counts only after eligible clicks, spend and attribution are held constant; profitability still requires downstream contribution margin.
Month-1 activation sets the cohort
The table reports month-one ARPU of $80 to $110 and 4.1 versus 2.8 deposits per player where data was available. Player mix, bonus policy, payment access, active-user and NGR definitions may explain part of the difference; CRM or platform causality is unproven.
Email confirmation and PWA install observations of 51%/44% versus 39.7%/30.2% are likewise diagnostic. A controlled flow test is needed to estimate whether either changed later deposits or re-engagement.
ROI and payback: where it resolves
The comparison reports month-5 payback and 170% 12-month ROI for one cohort, versus −24.3% for one comparison cohort. The accounting formula, CAC, costs, currency and censoring must match before the values can be compared.
A negative 12-month observation means the stated model did not recover its defined cost by that horizon. It does not prove the platform caused the result or that recovery can never occur.
Reported 12-month LTV is $550 versus $435 where data was available. Without sample size, confidence and matched cohort construction, the $115 difference is an observation rather than a repeatable uplift.
What "no data" means
“No Data” means unavailable, not zero. It also creates missingness bias: a platform should not be ranked on a metric that was not observed under the same rules.
The results page publishes the current claim context and the remaining evidence requirements. It should be treated as a first-party comparison until its governed methodology and downloadable aggregate are complete.