Review methodology

Last updated 3 August 2026.

Every network figure published here comes from a named source with a date attached, and the source hierarchy below decides which figure wins when two disagree. That rule exists because the adult ad network category is full of numbers copied between review sites until nobody can say where they started.

Source hierarchy

1. Primary documents. Regulator filings and rulings, statutory reports, official terms, payment and payout pages, app store listings. A Supreme Court opinion or an Ofcom report outranks everything else in the stack.
2. Direct observation of a network's own property. Its pricing page, its cabinet documentation, its published macro list. Marked as a vendor claim when the vendor is the only witness.
3. Dated third-party reporting. Media-buying reviews and measurement vendors, cited with the month they were published, because deposit floors and CPM ranges move.
4. Documented user reports. Ratings and complaint threads on affiliate directories, used as evidence of a pattern, never as a measured fact.

Competitor review articles are not a source at all, and facts lifted from them without a primary confirmation are treated as not existing, which is why the main guide to buying adult traffic carries fewer round numbers than most pages in this category and more citations.

How conflicts are handled

When sources disagree, the disagreement gets published rather than smoothed away. TrafficJunky is the standing example: its own directory listing, its media-buying reviews and affiliate forum threads state three different minimum deposits, so all three appear in the guide with the working figure named alongside them, and a network's traffic claim measured against a regulator's figure gets exactly the same treatment.

What is not claimed

No performance number on this site is presented as the result of a campaign run from our own account. Where a live test would produce a stronger answer, the text says which number is missing instead of inventing one, and CPM figures that change hourly are pointed at the source that shows them live rather than frozen into an article. The reasoning behind that restraint sits in the editorial policy.

How ranking is decided

Placement in a comparison table follows the criteria stated beside the table: entry cost, format range, targeting and optimisation controls, and what the network refuses to publish. Commercial relationships do not move a network up a table. Every network in a comparison gets at least one named drawback, including the ones we earn from. The commercial side is set out in the affiliate disclosure, and the background on this site explains who the coverage is written for.

Update cycle

Pages carry a visible update date. Deposit thresholds, regulatory status and traffic figures are re-checked when a source publishes something new, and the guide is re-verified at least quarterly. A reader who finds a stale figure before we do can flag it through the corrections inbox; corrections are logged and the update date changes with them.