iGaming Technology Cost Benchmark 2026
An online gambling operator’s technology stack typically costs between 15% and 20% of gross gaming revenue once platform, game content and tooling are combined. A full white-label arrangement costs considerably more — published rates run from 20% to 40% of GGR, with 20–30% the range most operators actually see.
This page sets out what those costs are made of, where the published market ranges sit, and where we believe those ranges are accurate. Figures are given as a share of GGR unless stated otherwise. Last reviewed August 2026.
We publish this because operators consistently tell us the same thing: technology pricing in this industry is quoted per deal and almost never benchmarked. You cannot renegotiate a rate you have nothing to compare against.
The short version
| Line item | Published market range | Where we think it sits |
|---|---|---|
| Casino platform | 8–15% of casino GGR (5–8% at volume) | 10–15% |
| Casino game content / aggregator | 3–8% of casino GGR | 2–5% — published range skews high |
| Casino, combined | 15–20% of casino GGR | 15–20% for small and mid-sized operators |
| Managed sportsbook, headline rate | 8–12% of sportsbook GGR | — |
| Managed sportsbook, all-in | 8–12% plus minimums, licence, feed, sports rights | ~14% average |
| Blended technology stack | 15–20% of GGR | 15–20% |
| Full white label (all-in) | 20–40% of GGR | 20–30% — the 40% end is rarely real |
The headline rate is not the cost
This is the single most expensive misunderstanding in iGaming procurement, and it shows up most clearly in sportsbook.
Managed-trading specialists — Kambi, Betby, Sportradar MTS — are publicly reported at 8–12% of sportsbook GGR. That is the number in the press release, and the number operators compare against.
It is not what you pay.
Published sources are explicit that the 8–12% share comes “often with a monthly minimum on top.” The minimum is the first addition, not the only one. Set against published vendor documentation and buyer guides, the headline rate is routinely accompanied by:
- A monthly minimum, payable whether or not your GGR earns it — commonly a five-figure monthly sum
- A platform licence, separate from trading — the 8–12% buys odds compilation and risk management, not the engine your players use
- The odds feed, licensed separately or bundled at a rate you cannot audit
- Premium sports rights — competitions such as UEFA, ATP and NFL are frequently priced as add-ons rather than included in the base rate
- Integration and certification fees, per market and per payment provider
- Per-market configuration, charged again for each new jurisdiction
Add those to an 8–12% headline and the effective all-in cost averages around 14% of sportsbook GGR. That is not a different number from the public one — it is the same number counted to the end.
On premium sports rights specifically: an operator who cannot offer the competitions their market actually bets on does not have a sportsbook. Pricing those separately means quoting for a product nobody would buy. We include them.
The same pattern, in setup fees
This is not confined to revenue share. It shows up wherever a number gets quoted.
Entry-level platform setup is currently quoted from around €12,500. Published vendor guides put actual setup for the same tier of provider at €20,000–€60,000, with SoftSwiss documented at €35,000 and up — meaning the figure invoiced lands at or above the bottom of the published range once integrations, per-market configuration, branding and certification are added.
That is a 60% gap between the quoted number and the published floor, in a completely different part of the contract from the trading fee. Two independent line items, the same behaviour — and premium sports rights make three.
The working assumption this justifies: in iGaming procurement, budget roughly 1.5× any headline figure you are quoted, unless the provider has given you a written total.
How to use this against a quote you have been given. Ask for total projected annual cost at three GGR levels: your current volume, double it, and half it — and ask for setup quoted as a single all-in figure covering every integration and market you plan to launch with. A provider who cannot or will not produce those numbers is telling you something about where their margin lives.
Why technology is the line that moves
An operator’s P&L has four large cost blocks. Three of them are largely fixed by the market you operate in.
| Cost block | Share of GGR | Can you renegotiate it? |
|---|---|---|
| Marketing & affiliate commission | 20–60% | Only by buying less volume |
| Licensing & gaming tax | 1–55%+ | No — set by jurisdiction |
| Operations & overhead | 5–15% | Slowly, and with headcount consequences |
| Payment processing | 2–5% | Marginally |
| Technology | 15–20% | Yes — without losing a single player |
Gaming tax in a given market is what it is. Marketing spend buys volume; cutting it cuts revenue. Payment rates move a few basis points at a time.
Technology is different. It is the one large line where the same players, the same volume and the same markets can sit on a materially cheaper stack. Nothing about the player-facing product has to change.
Where the money actually goes
Casino. Two separate costs that operators often conflate. The platform — accounts, wallet, lobby, back office — is published at 8–15% of casino GGR for small and mid-sized operators, dropping to 5–8% once volume gives you leverage. Game content sits on top: published aggregator rates run 3–8% of GGR, though in practice we see 2–5%.
The detail that matters: many contracts bundle platform and content into a single blended rate. That is convenient and it is also where margin hides. If you cannot see the two components separately, you cannot tell whether you are overpaying for the platform, the content, or both.
Sportsbook. Covered in detail above. In short: the 8–12% headline rate for managed trading buys odds compilation and risk management. The platform, the feed, integrations, per-market configuration and premium competition rights are priced separately, and the monthly minimum applies regardless of volume.
Affiliate and engagement tooling. Priced either as a share of GGR or as a monthly SaaS fee per vendor. The distinction compounds: a percentage vendor costs you more every month you grow, a flat-fee vendor does not. Over three years of growth that difference is usually larger than the headline rate.
Infrastructure. Scales with traffic. Monolithic platforms are sized for peak load and you pay for that sizing continuously. Independently scaling services are billed against what is actually under load.
One detail that moves the casino number. Rates quoted for direct studio integrations do not include an aggregator. Routing the same content through an aggregator instead typically adds 1.5–3 percentage points of GGR. Two quotes that look identical can differ by that much purely on integration model, so establish which one a rate assumes before comparing.
Fixed-fee alternatives
Not every provider prices on revenue share. Published figures for fixed-fee arrangements in 2026:
- Mid-market platform licence: €3,000–€15,000 per month
- Sportsbook platform licence: €5,000–€25,000 per month — but the spread is structural, not negotiable: an iFrame integration sits near €5,000, while a full sportsbook API with managed trading and an official feed starts at €15,000 and rises
- Entry-level setup: quoted from around €12,500 — published actuals for the same tier run €20,000–€60,000
- Mid-market setup and onboarding: €25,000–€100,000
- Enterprise full-stack setup: €200,000 and above
- Turnkey entry cost, all in: roughly €100,000–€500,000
- Full custom build, licensed EU markets: €300,000–€400,000 — above the top of every published range we found
Whether a fixed fee beats revenue share is arithmetic, not preference. At €10M annual GGR, a 15% blended technology rate is €1.5M a year — €125,000 a month. Against that, a €15,000 monthly licence plus a €100,000 setup is cheaper in year one and dramatically cheaper by year three. Below roughly €2M GGR the maths usually inverts, because fixed costs do not scale down.
The point is not that one model wins. It is that most operators have never run the comparison against their own numbers.
On build timelines. Published guides put a custom build at 8–18 months. Everything we have seen and heard runs 12–24 months for a licensed market. Treat the published floor as optimistic.
Methodology
Published ranges are drawn from vendor pricing guides, operator-facing buyer guides and industry analyses available publicly as of August 2026.
Where published sources disagree, and they do so wildly. For white-label revenue share alone, public guides give 20–40%, 10–30%, “typically 15%” and “up to 15%” — a spread of eight times for the same arrangement. Turnkey is quoted at both “5% or less” and 5–15%. Setup ranges from $5,000 to $150,000.
That disagreement is not a flaw in our research. It is the finding. Almost every rate in this industry is negotiated individually and covered by an NDA, which is why public guides contradict each other and why an operator has no reliable way to tell whether their own contract is normal. That is precisely the gap this page exists to fill.
Our own column reflects where we believe the published ranges sit against the market as we observe it, stated as ranges rather than specific terms. We do not publish figures from any operator’s or vendor’s contract, and nothing here is drawn from confidential commercial documents.
What this benchmark does not cover: licence acquisition costs, compliance and certification, payment provider rates, or marketing. Those are real costs and they are outside the scope of a technology benchmark.
Currency. Figures in euros. Percentages are of GGR, not NGR — a distinction that matters, because the same headline rate against NGR is a different absolute number once bonuses are deducted.
Revision policy. Reviewed quarterly. Last reviewed August 2026.
Licence. This benchmark is published under CC BY 4.0. You may cite, quote and reproduce it with attribution to Pixup Play.
Frequently asked questions
How much does iGaming technology cost as a percentage of GGR?
An operator’s technology stack typically costs 15–20% of gross gaming revenue when platform, game content and tooling are combined. A full white-label arrangement, which bundles licence, payments and support alongside technology, is published at 20–40% of GGR, though 20–30% is the range most operators actually see. Fixed-fee alternatives run €3,000–€25,000 per month depending on scope, plus setup.
What percentage of GGR goes to casino platform and content?
Published sources put the casino platform at 8–15% of casino GGR for small and mid-sized operators, falling to 5–8% at higher volume. Game content adds 3–8% on top by published figures, though 2–5% is closer to what we see. Combined, 12–20% of casino GGR.
Is casino platform cost separate from game content cost?
They are separate costs that are frequently billed as one blended rate. The platform covers accounts, wallet, lobby and back office. Content is the provider revenue share on the games themselves. If your contract shows a single number, you cannot audit either component — and that is usually deliberate.
Why do sportsbook providers quote 8–12% when the real cost is 13–15%?
Because 8–12% is the trading fee, not the total. Published rates for managed-trading specialists come with a monthly minimum on top, and the platform licence, odds feed, integration and certification fees and per-market configuration are billed separately. Premium competitions — UEFA, ATP, NFL and similar — are frequently priced as add-ons. Added together, the effective all-in cost lands nearer 13–15% of sportsbook GGR.
Are premium sports rights included in a sportsbook rate?
Often not. Major competitions such as UEFA, ATP and NFL are commonly charged as add-ons on top of the base rate. Since an operator cannot realistically run a sportsbook without the competitions their market bets on, a quote excluding them describes a product that does not exist. Ask specifically which competitions are included before comparing two rates.
How do I compare two provider quotes properly?
Ask each provider for total projected annual cost at three GGR levels: your current volume, double, and half. Percentages alone are not comparable across providers because each bundles a different scope and adds different fees.
How much should I budget above a quoted setup fee?
Roughly 1.5× the headline, unless the provider has given you a written all-in figure. Entry-level setup currently quotes from around €12,500 while published actuals for the same tier run €20,000–€60,000.
Why do published sources disagree so much about iGaming pricing?
Because almost every rate is negotiated individually and covered by an NDA. Public guides are assembled from fragments, which is why white-label revenue share appears as 20–40%, 10–30% and “typically 15%” across different sources. The absence of a reliable public benchmark is itself the reason operators cannot tell whether their own contract is competitive.
Which operator costs can actually be renegotiated?
Technology, primarily. Gaming tax is set by jurisdiction. Marketing spend buys volume, so cutting it cuts revenue. Payment processing moves in basis points. Technology is the one large line where the same players and the same volume can sit on a materially cheaper stack.
How does technology cost change as an operator grows?
Under a flat revenue share, it grows proportionally forever — you pay more every month you succeed, for the same service. Under fixed fees or a tiered rate, it flattens. This is why the models cross over: revenue share is cheaper at low volume and progressively more expensive as you scale.