When people ask how online casinos make money, they usually think about the operator: the company that runs the games, accepts wagers and pays out winnings.
But there is another business sitting one step earlier in the customer journey. Comparison sites help users decide where to play, explain payment methods and bonuses, review operators and send traffic to casino websites. They do not run the games themselves. They make money from publishing, referrals and advertising.
The two businesses are connected, but the economics are different:
- Casino operators generate gaming revenue from activity on their platforms.
- Comparison publishers can earn referral commissions, advertising revenue, sponsorships or other media income.
- Regulators set rules that affect both sides, but the obligations are not identical.
Over time, the larger comparison businesses have become less like simple link directories and more like specialist media companies, with editorial teams, testing processes, data systems and compliance work behind the pages users see.
From Referral Pages to Specialist Publishers
The basic affiliate model is simple: publish information about an operator, send a user to that operator and receive compensation if the referral meets the agreed conditions.
What has changed is the amount of work required to build a useful comparison product around that model.
| Function | What it involves |
| Editorial | Writers, editors, review standards and corrections |
| Product | Filters, comparison tables and structured operator data |
| Testing | Registration, deposits, withdrawals, customer support and T&C checks |
| Compliance | Following advertising, licensing and market-rule changes |
| Distribution | SEO, direct traffic, newsletters, social channels and technical infrastructure |
Canadian comparison publishers such as CasinoCanada describe a review process that includes real deposits and withdrawals, reading terms and conditions and checking licences.
That is the publisher’s own description of its methodology, rather than independent proof of quality, but it illustrates the type of operational work modern comparison sites increasingly use to support their reviews.
The important change is that a useful comparison site has to be maintained. Payment limits change. Bonus terms change. Operators enter and leave markets. Licences change. A page that was accurate six months ago may no longer be accurate today.
How Do Online Casinos Make Money, and Where Do Publishers Fit?
It helps to separate operator revenue from publisher revenue.
For an operator, gaming revenue is not the same thing as total wagers. In Ontario, iGaming Ontario defines gaming revenue broadly as wagers collected from players minus winnings and eligible deductions.
Operating costs and other liabilities are separate from that calculation. iGaming Ontario’s audited 2024-25 annual report explains the accounting in detail.
A comparison publisher does not generate that gaming revenue itself. Instead, it is usually paid under a commercial agreement for delivering customers or media exposure.
CPA: a one-time acquisition payment
CPA, or Cost Per Acquisition, is usually a one-time payment when a referred user completes the agreed qualifying action.
In its 2021 Annual Report, Better Collective described CPA as a pre-agreed one-time fee for a referred player who creates an account and deposits with the gaming operator.
In simple terms: the publisher refers a qualifying new customer, and the operator pays once.
Revenue share: income linked to referred players over time
Revenue share works differently. Instead of a single acquisition fee, the publisher receives a contractually agreed share of revenue generated from referred customers.
The exact calculation depends on the affiliate agreement. Better Collective describes revenue share as remuneration based on a percentage of net revenue generated by a referred new depositing customer.
This means publisher income does not move in a straight line with the amount players wager. The result depends on the operator’s revenue from those users and on the commercial definition used in the agreement.
Hybrid and media models
Some agreements combine an upfront CPA with an ongoing revenue-share component. Larger media businesses can also earn money from sources that have nothing to do with a single casino referral.
Better Collective’s Q1 2026 report, for example, separates Publishing, Paid Media and Esports as distinct operating segments and reports revenue across revenue share, CPA, subscriptions, sponsorships, CPM advertising and other income.
That does not mean every casino comparison site has the same business model. It shows how far a large affiliate-led media company can diversify beyond a simple commission on an outbound click.
The key distinction: operators make money from gaming activity. Publishers make money from audience, referrals and media products.
Ontario Changed the Economics of Customer Acquisition
Canada does not have one national commercial framework for private online casinos. Gambling regulation is provincial, and Ontario provides the clearest example of an open regulated iGaming market with private operators.
Ontario’s regulated market launched on April 4, 2022. For publishers and marketing affiliates, two AGCO standards are particularly important.
Operators are responsible for contracted third parties
Under AGCO Standard 1.19, an operator is responsible for the actions of third parties it contracts to carry out parts of its Ontario gaming business.
The operator must require those third parties to act as though they were bound by the same applicable laws, regulations and standards when acting on its behalf.
This is not just theoretical. In March 2025, the AGCO issued C$110,000 in monetary penalties to BetMGM Canada after marketing activity involving third-party affiliates. The regulator specifically cited Standards 1.19 and 2.05.
Public bonus and inducement advertising is restricted
AGCO Standard 2.05 prohibits public advertising and marketing that communicates gambling inducements, bonuses or credits.
Those offers may be communicated on an operator’s gaming site or through direct advertising after active player consent, subject to the standard.
That matters to comparison publishers because promotional language that may be normal in another market can create compliance problems in Ontario when used as part of an operator’s marketing activity.
Athlete and youth-focused advertising rules are tighter too
Since February 28, 2024, Ontario has also prohibited the use of active or retired athletes in iGaming advertising and marketing except for the exclusive purpose of advocating responsible gambling.
The rules also restrict celebrities, social-media influencers and other figures who would likely be expected to appeal to minors. The AGCO announced the change in 2023 before it came into force the following February.
The practical effect is not that customer acquisition disappeared. It became more compliance-sensitive. Operators have stronger reasons to monitor how affiliates and other marketing partners present their brands.
Important: Ontario’s framework is provincial. It should not be presented as a rulebook for all of Canada.
A Market Large Enough to Support a Publishing Layer
Comparison publishing only becomes a serious business when the underlying market is large and competitive enough to support it.
Ontario clearly meets that test.
According to iGaming Ontario’s audited Annual Report 2024-25:
- C$82.7 billion was wagered during the fiscal year.
- C$2.9 billion in total gaming revenue was recorded.
- C$2.19 billion of that gaming revenue came from casino products.
- More than 2.6 million active player accounts recorded wagering activity during the year.
- 50 operators were active at the end of the reporting period.
There is an important caveat to the 2.6 million figure: these are active accounts, not 2.6 million unique people. One person can hold accounts with multiple operators.
The market has also continued to change. The iGaming Ontario operator directory listed 49 regulated operators and 84 gaming websites as of September 1, 2026.
That level of competition creates a genuine information problem for users. Which site is actually regulated in Ontario? Which payment methods work? What are the withdrawal rules? Has a bonus changed? Is a brand new, rebranded or leaving the market?
Those are exactly the kinds of questions comparison publishers can answer — provided the information is kept current.
What Separates a Publisher From a Thin Affiliate Page?
The difference is less about how the site makes money and more about what sits behind the recommendation.
A stronger comparison operation typically has:
- A documented review methodology
- Named writers or editors
- Clear commercial or affiliate disclosures
- Real product testing where practical
- Licence and ownership checks
- Regular reviews of terms, bonuses and payment conditions
- A process for corrections and updates
A simple affiliate page can also earn CPA or revenue share. The business model alone does not make a publisher trustworthy. The difference is whether the information is independently useful even before a user clicks an affiliate link.
For the reader, the useful question is not “does this site earn commission?” It is “would this comparison still help me if I never clicked the commercial link?”
Why the Business Model Has Built-In Tension?
Affiliate publishing has an obvious conflict to manage: the companies being reviewed may also be the companies paying for referred customers.
That does not automatically make the information unreliable, but it makes transparency important.
Four risks show up repeatedly:
- Distribution risk. Search engines, social platforms and app ecosystems can change how much traffic a publisher receives.
- Regulatory risk. Advertising and licensing rules differ by market and can change quickly.
- Revenue concentration. A publisher can become too dependent on a small number of commercial partners.
- Editorial conflict. A commercially valuable operator may also deserve a poor review.
Large media groups try to reduce those risks by diversifying. Better Collective’s Q1 2026 reporting showed group revenue coming from revenue share, CPA, subscriptions, sponsorships and CPM advertising rather than a single model.
Revenue share represented 47% of group revenue in the quarter, CPA 25%, sponsorships 16%, CPM 7% and subscriptions 5%.
Diversification does not remove the conflict between commerce and editorial judgement. It simply reduces dependence on one revenue stream.
Why This Matters to the Reader?
The economics behind a comparison site affect what users see.
If a publisher earns money when readers sign up with operators, the site should make that relationship understandable.
A good comparison should explain why one brand ranks above another, what was actually tested and what information comes directly from the operator.
Readers should also be able to distinguish three separate things:
- Regulatory status: whether an operator is authorised to serve the relevant market.
- Editorial assessment: what the publisher found when reviewing the product.
- Commercial relationship: whether the publisher can earn money from the referral.
Those three can coexist, but they should not be confused with one another.
Why the Model Is Becoming More Like Media Than Lead Generation?
The old affiliate formula was built around a page and a link. The more durable version is built around an audience, structured data, editorial work and a system for keeping information current.
That is why the economics increasingly look like specialist media.
Operators still make money from gaming. Comparison publishers still make money from referrals and advertising.
But the publishers that want users to return have to invest in something more difficult to buy: useful information that stays accurate as the market changes.
In Ontario especially, regulation has made that distinction more important. Affiliates do not operate outside the commercial chain.
When they act for regulated operators, their marketing can create regulatory consequences for the operator as well.
The result is a more mature business than the old “logo, bonus, link” model — and a more demanding one. The outbound click still matters. It just works best when the publishing around it is worth reading first.
