About Adult Web Traffic

Last updated: 31 July 2026

Adult Web Traffic compares the networks that sell adult traffic, on the terms a media buyer actually decides with: what it costs to open an account, which formats are available on the buy side, how payouts are scheduled, and what the delivery footprint looks like after three years of age-verification law. It exists because the published numbers in this category are unreliable in a specific, documented way, and because nobody else was correcting them. I write it for people who buy media professionally — affiliates, in-house buyers, agency planners working 18+ verticals. If you landed here looking for adult content, this is the wrong address: I sell nothing, host nothing, and publish no adult material.

Why this site exists

Search for a minimum deposit on any adult ad network and you will find the same figure repeated across two dozen affiliate blogs. Trace it back and it frequently leads nowhere. ClickAdilla is quoted at $50 across most listicles while its own support article states that the minimum depends on your funding method and is visible only inside the account. TrafficJunky's threshold is reported anywhere between $25 and $1,000 depending on which payment rail the writer happened to use. Two of the networks I compare publish no entry figure at all, yet both carry precise-looking numbers in third-party roundups.

That pattern has a cost. A buyer plans a test budget around a number that was never real, funds an account, discovers the working requirement is five to ten times higher once balance reservation and statistical minimums are accounted for, and has no way to withdraw the difference because adult networks run strictly pre-paid. I started this site to break that loop: read the platform's own documentation, publish what it says, and state plainly when it says nothing.

The second reason is regulatory. Between the Supreme Court's decision in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton in June 2025 and the wave of state statutes that followed, the map of where adult traffic can legally land has changed more than the ad tech itself. Network comparisons written before that shift still describe a United States that no longer exists as a single targeting unit. Tracking that change is a permanent part of what I publish, not a one-off section.

What I publish and what I refuse to publish

I publish the network comparison on the Adult Web Traffic homepage, alongside breakdowns of entry costs and pricing models, explanations of ad formats and where each one fits, and analysis of the compliance layer that sits between a media plan and a live campaign. Each figure carries the date I verified it and, where it matters, the document it came from.

I do not publish rankings, scores or "best of" lists. Assigning a network 8.4 out of 10 implies a measurement nobody performed, and in a category where the underlying facts are this contested, a composite score hides more than it communicates. My comparison tables carry factual columns only: launch year, minimum deposit, pricing models, ad formats, inventory type. A reader can weigh those against their own campaign; I will not weigh them on the reader's behalf and call the result a rating.

I also do not publish estimates dressed as facts. Where a network states no figure, the table says "not published" and the surrounding text explains what that means in practice. That decision costs me tidy-looking tables and it is deliberate: an empty cell is information, and a fabricated one is a liability for whoever plans a budget around it.

Who writes it

I am Smith Jones, Performance Media Analyst, and I am responsible for the research and the text on this site. I have spent nine years buying and analysing performance traffic across dating, subscription and 18+ verticals, working mainly on programmatic supply quality and on the gap between what a network advertises and what its own documents say. My full background, areas of expertise and verification method are set out on my author page.

Every page is signed. There are no anonymous comparisons here and no articles credited to a house byline. If a figure on this site is wrong, there is one named person to hold responsible for it, which is exactly the accountability the category usually lacks.

How a page gets made

The sequence is the same each time and it starts with primary sources. I open the network's own advertiser documentation, help centre and payment pages, and record what they state along with the date. Where a figure appears only in a third-party listing, it does not enter the comparison table — it may appear in the text, labelled as reported, with the nature of the source made explicit.

Next I look for contradictions, because those are the most useful thing on the page. A marketing page promising one deposit minimum while the help centre ties it to payment method is a finding, not a nuisance. So is a network recommending a $500 starting budget while advertising a $5 campaign floor. I publish the contradiction rather than picking whichever number reads better.

Then I check documented user experience on independent platforms — Affpaying, Trustpilot and similar — looking for repeated patterns rather than isolated complaints. A single angry review proves nothing. Three separate accounts of creatives being rejected after funding, arriving independently, tell a buyer something actionable about the order of operations.

Finally the page is dated and scheduled for recheck. Deposit terms, format lists and state-level regulation all move. A comparison that was accurate in March is a liability by September if nobody looks at it again. My editorial policy sets out the full source hierarchy and the correction process in detail.

How the site is funded

This site carries affiliate links. If you open an account with a network through a link here, I may earn a commission at no additional cost to you. That is the entire business model — there is no paid placement, no sponsored comparison and no arrangement in which a network buys its position in a table.

The relationship changes nothing about what gets reported. Where a network I have a commercial relationship with has a weakness — weak automated optimisation, slower payout terms, figures that live behind a login rather than on a public page — that weakness is named on the page in the same terms I would use for anyone else. The comparison table for the network I link to most carries a full column of limitations for exactly this reason.

I decline requests to remove accurate information, adjust ordering, or soften a stated limitation. If a partnership is conditional on any of those, I do not take it. This is set out in full in my editorial policy, and the disclosure appears in the footer of every page.

Who this site is for, and who it is not for

It is for advertising professionals aged 18 and over who buy or plan media in 18+ verticals. The material assumes you know what a CPM is, why source-level reporting matters and what a postback does.

It is not for consumers, and it is not a gateway to adult content. This is not an advertising network: I sell no inventory, run no campaigns on behalf of clients, and have no access to anyone's account, balance or campaign data. If you have a dispute with a network, I cannot resolve it — you will need the network's own support channel.

What this site collects about its readers is described in the privacy policy. Questions, corrections and data updates go to [email protected]. If you have found a figure here that is out of date or contradicts a platform's current documentation, send the link and I will verify and update it. Full contact routes for editorial, partnership and privacy matters are on the contact page.