State of the iGaming Affiliate Market 2026: Customer Concentration Stress Tests
Modeled Industry Benchmarks. Prepared 15 October 2026. Published figures retain their original period and population. Scenario inputs are explicitly illustrative and are not measured industry averages, forecasts, or results from iGamingXpert customers. This series studies affiliate measurement; it does not estimate a universal CPA, conversion rate, or player lifetime value.
What does a published concentration ratio establish?
Gambling.com Group’s 2025 Form 20-F reports that its ten largest customers represented 25% of group revenue in 2025, compared with 32% in 2024 and 48% in 2023. The largest customer represented 4%, 5% and 16%, respectively. These are one company’s historical group-level disclosures, not average affiliate exposure. The group includes different business activities, so the percentages do not isolate an individual publisher’s marketing contracts.
| Year | Top ten customers | Largest customer |
|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 48% | 16% |
| 2024 | 32% | 5% |
| 2025 | 25% | 4% |
How can a normalized stress test use those shares?
Normalize a synthetic annual revenue base to $1,000,000. Apply the disclosed 2025 percentages only as stress-test weights. A four-percent customer interruption corresponds to $40,000 of modeled annual revenue. A complete interruption of the entire top-ten group corresponds to $250,000. This conversion rescales the proportions for demonstration; it does not estimate the company’s actual revenue loss or the probability of an interruption.
| Stress assumption | Revenue at risk | Revenue retained |
|---|---|---|
| Largest-customer share interrupted | $40,000 | $960,000 |
| Top-ten share falls by 20% | $50,000 | $950,000 |
| Entire top-ten share interrupted | $250,000 | $750,000 |
The middle scenario is $1,000,000 × 25% × 20% = $50,000. The stress cases are alternatives, not independent events that can be added. The largest customer is already included in the top-ten group. Adding $40,000 and $250,000 would double count overlapping exposure.
How does payment delay differ from revenue loss?
A payment delay can create a working-capital requirement even when commission remains collectible. For a synthetic $120,000 monthly commission base, assume 25% belongs to one counterparty group and that this group pays two months later than planned. Under a steady flow and no partial payments, the incremental delayed receivable is $120,000 × 25% × 2 = $60,000. The amount is a cash-timing scenario, not a permanent revenue loss.
| Exposed share | Delay | Additional delayed receivable |
|---|---|---|
| 10% | 1 month | $12,000 |
| 25% | 2 months | $60,000 |
| 40% | 3 months | $144,000 |
What should the operating dataset contain?
Group contracts by the legal counterparty and payment entity as well as the player-facing brand. Several brands can share a payment risk, while one group can use distinct contractual entities. Retain invoice date, due date, settlement date, currency, disputed amount and original accrual period. This permits separate measures for revenue concentration, overdue receivables and cash realization.
Use concentration ratios alongside a distribution when the underlying customer shares are available. The top-ten ratio does not identify how revenue is split within those ten customers or across the remaining customers. A Herfindahl index calculated from undisclosed shares would require fabricated inputs. This report therefore does not supply one or interpret the published ratios as a complete diversification score.
Can concentration changes be attributed to tracking software?
The disclosed shares alone cannot identify the cause of a concentration change. Revenue mix, acquisitions, customer additions and commercial performance can alter both numerator and denominator. A causal claim would require aligned contract-level evidence and a credible comparison design. The stress test only establishes arithmetic exposure under its stated weights.
For a publisher using this model in 2026, replace the normalized inputs with reconciled financial data and preserve the legal-entity grouping. Track revenue interruption separately from a delayed payment. That distinction produces a more useful risk ledger than a single blended figure presented as an industry norm.
Sources and reproducibility
Gambling.com Group: Form 20-F for the year ended 31 December 2025, customer concentration disclosures. Accessed 15 October 2026. Preserve the source period, currency, definitions and revision status when rerunning these calculations.
Prepared by the iGamingXpert editorial team. This is a desk-research and scenario-modeling report; no primary operator or player dataset was collected. Calculate RevShare profitability with your own documented assumptions.
