Over the 3 months measured: no automatic PU/DAU correlation
Non-gaming subscription ARPU: $8.39 iOS vs $1.54 Android
Non-gaming IAA D90 ROAS: 95% in Android, 80% in iOS
The big merge: marketing and monetization in a hybrid era
“Hybrid monetization”. The buzzword on everyone’s lips. But does this model of monetization truly deliver? The answer is yes, assuming it’s the right fit for your business. In some cases, adding a revenue stream drives incremental rises; in others, it could jeopardize revenue generation. “Cannibalization vs. hybridization” is emerging as the new “risk vs. reward” paradigm.
To make sense of it all, AppsFlyer offers, in this first-of-its-kind report, an inside look at monetization strategies across four common models, also known as revenue streams: in-app purchases (IAP), in-app advertising (IAA), hybrid (IAA & IAP), and subscriptions.
The diversification of revenue streams highlights the importance of an often overlooked yet crucial “partnership” between marketing and monetization. Whereas marketers are focused on driving profitable growth for a cohort of newly-acquired users, monetization managers are tasked with generating and optimizing revenue for the app from all users, at any given time frame.
But only a strong marketing-monetization alignment can help ensure that your app’s strategy is perfectly tailored to your current model, or to the model of monetization you aspire to adopt.
Looking at metrics like ARPU (Average revenue per user), ROAS (Return on ad spend) and DAU (Daily active user), this report provides marketing teams and monetization managers a clear picture of where they stand in the industry, and how they can work together to achieve better results.
* All results are based on fully anonymous and aggregated data. To ensure statistical validity, we follow strict volume thresholds and methodologies and only present data when these conditions are met. When normalized data is presented, the share of each month out of the total for the entire time frame is shown to create a trend. ** In-app purchase and subscription revenue only includes verified revenue from the App Store and Google Play
Hybrid or IAP? ARPU insights can fuel app growth
Average Revenue Per User (ARPU) at Day 90 since install reveals important insights into long-term app growth, making it a go-to metric for shaping monetization strategy. Shifting from an IAP-only model to a hybrid approach with ads might look appealing for added revenue, but there’s a catch—ads could cannibalize IAP earnings, especially for games with rewarded ads. Aligning these choices with your profitability timeline—whether one month, 90 days, or a year—helps manage that risk smartly.
In 2024’s ARPUdata, we can see that iOS Mid-Core games take the lead in Day 90 revenue across monetization types, with hybrid models reaching $9.69, while IAP follows at $7.31 in high income markets — the data sample used throughout this report except in the specific section on emerging markets further ahead.
The dominance of Mid-Core underscores the power of iOS, especially in high income markets where the high purchasing power of their top users (AKA whales) drives strong results across models.
Still, Android holds its own in some Casual games with IAP models and in Hypercasual titles using IAA, where the gap with iOS is notably reduced, as tight synergy between marketing and monetization teams helps narrow the gap with iOS.
For Casual games, IAP sits on top but has hybrid models close behind. In Hypercasual, iOS hybrid models slightly edge out IAA ($0.82 vs. $0.71)—a meaningful difference given this genre’s need for high user volume and low margins. But it’s key to remember: what works best isn’t universal; each app’s user base brings unique results.
ARPPU (Average Revenue Per Paying User) further underscores iOS’s value, capturing around 60% of revenue in both Mid-Core and Casual games. This consistent lead across genres and monetization models highlights iOS’s strong cross-genre advantage over Android.
Day 90 ARPU by monetization model *
ROAS: where marketing meets monetization
Marketing and monetization strategies work best when they’re in sync, and that starts by knowing exactly when a user hits profitability. Return on Ad Spend (ROAS) and Lifetime Value (LTV) are your essential guides—ROAS measures profit over time, while LTV forecasts the true long-term value of each user.
Our ROAS data highlights a key insight: trying to optimize acquisition, monetization, and retention all at once is difficult—it’s all about balance between those three parameters. Each monetization model has its own rhythm and logic.
Hypercasual games using ads bring fast wins, with revenue peaking early but capping just shy of 100% breakeven ROAS around Day 60. On IAP models, iOS Mid-core games hit breakeven between Days 7 and 14, while Casual Android games on hybrid models reach it closer to Day 30. Interestingly, Android Mid-core displays higher ROAS on Hybrids than on IAP (146% vs. 93% Day 90), while iOS Mid-core on IAP models hits 215% (vs. 73% only on Hybrid models).
In any case, ROAS acts as the bridge between marketing and monetization teams. For marketers, it’s the ultimate KPI—a tangible marker of revenue generation and ad spend efficiency. For monetization managers, however, ROAS is just the starting point. Knowing exactly when profitability hits—whether Day 7, 14, or beyond—enables strategic adjustments to improve user experience, Lifetime Value (LTV), and retention.
This is where the first-time user experience (FTUE) becomes critical; fine-tuning FTUE around breakeven points can significantly impact long-term engagement and revenue. Predictive ROAS and LTV (pLTV) calculations provide further insight into planning enhancements at the right time.
ROAS attainment by day and monetization model *
Map out early revenue with day-by-day analysis
Measuring when revenue flows in (revenue split by day) over the first 90 days can help shape effective monetization strategies. Casual games on iOS, for instance, can see faster returns with hybrid models, reaching 55% of total revenue by Day 7. In contrast, apps relying solely on in-app purchases (IAP) often take until Day 30 to hit 66%, making hybrid models an ideal choice for quicker returns—a trend that holds for Midcore games as well.
On Android, Hypercasual games using ads-only models show even faster revenue accumulation, typically reaching 64% by Day 3. This reveals that for high-volume engagement games, ad-based models can potentially be more effective for early revenue capture.
By studying these trends across platforms and genres, you can shape a monetization plan that’s fine-tuned to your app’s unique style and audience, driving smarter, data-backed decisions and a fast path to revenue growth.
Remember, trends aren’t just about spikes—steady curves are just as revealing. Ultimately, the optimal strategy depends on balancing user acquisition, monetization, and retention, each with its own-trade-offs and occasionally competing goals.
Revenue split within 90 days of install (cumulative) *
Casual games thrive on Paid, Mid-core on Organic
Casual and Hypercasual games rake in a lion’s share of their revenue through paid campaigns, and it makes sense: with tons of games competing for attention, paid ads help them stand out. Mid-core games, on the other hand, take a different route. With fewer Mid-core games on the market—including well-known brands—most of their revenue comes from organic traffic. Players already know these games and seek them out directly.
But there’s an interesting twist with Mid-core games: the revenue split between paid and organic channels isn’t always static. If we look at our cohorted data, we see a bump in paid revenue as monetization managers ramp up efforts to keep players engaged over a set period. Those efforts pay off, literally. By keeping users active and coming back, they’re boosting revenue in ways that organic alone can’t achieve.
So, while organic remains strong for these familiar Mid-core brands, paid campaigns still play a key role in maximizing earnings—especially when targeted effort is put into re-engaging players.
Day 90 organic vs. paid revenue split *
Organic vs. paid revenue split (non-cohorted) *
User patterns: When DAU and paying users don’t sync up
Sometimes monetization metrics won’t sync up—especially when we look into user activity patterns. For Android casual games, we often see daily active users (DAU) spike on weekends, but here’s the catch—this doesn’t automatically mean an uptick in paying users (PU).
In fact, while DAU might soar, activity from paying users often follows its own rhythm, showing that engagement and spending don’t always sync up. Just because more users are active doesn’t mean more are paying, so relying on DAU alone might miss the mark for revenue.
The takeaway? Start by treating DAU and PU as separate metrics with their own patterns. For Android casual games, those weekend DAU peaks might be ideal for rolling out new content to boost engagement, while PU data from iOS subscriptions shows the value of converting trial users.
By analyzing each metric individually, monetization managers can identify moments when DAU and PU might align and shape a targeted strategy that enhances engagement and secures revenue over time.
Daily active users trend during Q3 (normalized) *
Paying users trend during Q3 (normalized) *
Subscriptions apps ARPU: and the winner is…
iOS stands out as a powerhouse for subscription-based apps, with users spending more than five times on average compared to Android. This is particularly true in industries like gaming and e-commerce. Geos also play as a factor. The gap in ARPU is smaller in high incomes countries, larger in regions like Latin America or Southeast Asia.
Strategy-wise, a high ARPU on iOS enables apps to justify higher UA spending, as iOS, albeit in limited numbers, are still more likely to become paying subscribers. In parallel, scaling on Android is constrained by monetization challenges, which may require different strategies, such as focusing on lower-cost acquisition or alternative revenue models.
Day 90 ARPU for non-gaming subscription apps *
Free trials: from early challenges to long-term ROAS
Free trials are a cornerstone of subscription-based apps, but they present measurement challenges at an early stage. In a post SKAN environment, leveraging IDFA data from double-opted-in users is helpful to unlock full cohort insights—measuring every stage from trial to renewal. This allows smarter ad network optimization, ensuring your campaigns target high-value users instead of trial-only audiences.
A large share of subscriptions begins with free trials (from Day 3 to Day 30), resulting in minimal Day 1 revenue. However, revenue often increase by Day 3 – 7 as trial users convert, reaching at least 50% of Day 90 revenue. Beyond this, renewals at Day 30+ and 60+ continue driving growth, making retention a real revenue multiplier.
This means that for marketers as well as monetization managers, the delayed revenue curve demands a refined approach. Over-optimizing for trial starts rather than long-term revenue can skew results. Younger audiences, for example, often convert to trials at high rates but fail to become paying subscribers. Balancing early signals with lifetime value is key.
ROAS attainment by day for non-gaming subscription apps *
Revenue split by day for non-gaming subscription apps (cumulative) *
Brand awareness boosts organic growth
On the pre-installation front, the relatively strong organic share of paid campaigns is attributed, among other variables, to the positive impact of brand awareness. But LTV-wise, monetization only starts. In that perspective, free trials offer a significant post-installation advantage, both for organic and paid users: they allow apps to build their own first-party data.
This valuable asset can be leveraged at a lower cost through owned channels and can effectively target users who have installed the app but haven’t yet made a purchase, driving them toward conversion.
Organic vs. paid revenue split for non-gaming subscription apps *
If Hybrid boosts value, IAA speeds profits
Successful non-gaming app monetization can hinge on choosing between in-app subscriptions or ads…or both. A growing minority of non-gaming apps are beginning to adopt hybrid models, drawing inspiration from successful gaming strategies that more effectively optimize the demand curve, and the variety of user behaviors.
But for non-gaming apps using the IAA model, the approach is all about faster revenue capture. Non-gaming apps that rely on ads typically see high revenue right from the start, with nearly 90% of total revenue for the first three months coming in after just 30 days. This rapid revenue flow makes IAA a great choice for apps that attract high traffic and want to generate income fast.
We also note that non-gaming apps monetized through in-app advertising (IAA) have a more balanced revenue distribution between Android and iOS.
The takeaway? While subscriptions thrive on iOS by creating loyal users through trial-based engagement, the IAA model offers a quick, impactful revenue boost across platforms. Aligning your model with your app can boost tailored revenue flow, while hybrid models can provide higher ARPU, both on iOS and Android.
Day 90 ARPU for non-gaming IAA apps *
ROAS attainment by day for non-gaming IAA apps *
Revenue split by day for non-gaming IAA apps (cumulative) *
- What overlooked factors should people consider when choosing the hybrid model?
-
Hybrid monetization done right is a true investment- one that’s easier for games employing flexible backends, power systems, and economies built to leverage a multi-pronged monetization strategy.
This is why many hybrid apps we see today are less than two years old, with the exception of some large publishers who made a big investment implementing hybrid monetization into their popular legacy apps or bet on hybrid from the start. I suspect that much of the 20% YoY increases of apps using hybrid are new entrants to the market. If your ARPDAU is below 50 cents, then you can add 5-10% net revenue by adding in vanity IAP to an IAA game or putting ad monetization into an IAP game without much risk of cannibalization.
But to really succeed at hybrid, such as a 70/30 or 40/60 split -without cannibalization- requires consideration of technical challenges serving segmentation, video ads, and mediation or design challenges with faster content and power progression. This is alongside investment in retraining or hiring product talent to deploy best practices in both monetization streams. You could even hire a direct sales team if you’ve built a recognizable brand.
Speaking of brands, if you are building a new game for IP holders, it’s important to know IP holders may not allow ad monetization next to their brand. That means those minimum guarantees and revenue share agreements are all the more expensive when you also lose the ability to add 20% net revenue from savvy ad monetization. - Which app categories stick to IAA or IAP only, and why? Do you think the cannibalization "threat" is here to stay?
-
Many monetization models can work across gaming genres because the heart of this question lies in how your audience likes to progress: by handing over their attention or their wallets? The important considerations are target audience, ROAS payback period, max LTV, and protections from an economic principle called the “Substitution Effect”. I explain using the substitution effect to balance ad load vs. IAP in your hybrid game in my most recent blog post here for our astute readers.
The name of the hybrid game is slightly less ad friction than other games your audience plays. Your target audience dictates how much ad monetization you earn before cannibalizing IAP spend or lowering retention, judged against available substitutes. As long as your rewarded ads are more valuable to players or ad friction is lower than available substitutes in that subgenre, then there is no advantage churning to another game.
Generally, incorporating IAA alongside IAP monetization will earn revenue quickly to reduce your ROAS payback period, but without payer segmentation it limits your overall LTV. On the flipside, IAA-only will give you one of the fastest ROAS payback periods if your CPI is low enough but your LTV will be severely capped. That’s why primarily hyper and hybridcasual apps use IAA: this value trade off on genre-wide low LTVs is positive against substitute games who use a similar strategy.
If available substitute games are largely IAP only and you can stomach long payback periods, then IAP only is best. It builds brand loyalty to pull in organics and no cannibalizing ads pulling down your high LTV. Some games in these genres incorporated hybrid successfully, but they also target a slightly more casual niche inside core. An example is Whiteout Survival by Century Games- an RTS game that presents as a hypercasual for the beginning of gameplay. - Some say ROAS is now a top focus for monetization managers, overtaking metrics like CPI. Yet, in your research, LTV and ARPDU still lead in interest. What’s your view on these shifting metric priorities?
-
ROAS is an important summary metric that tells you how quickly (if at all) you are earning back your money against your CPI. This lets you manage cash flow across a portfolio of games that have different payback periods, but it’s only the starting point as a bridge to LTV in judging your game as a complete investment.
This is why in my Hybrid Monetization 2024 report with Gamesforum Ltd showed both hybrid, IAA, and IAP gamemakers rated LTV as their highest priority metric to improve in the next 6 months, while planning against the orchestration of LTV, CPM, and CPI trends by geo across many different teams is their number one challenge for 2025.
Your cohorted LTV reveals not only the earning ceiling of your investment, but if you are growing that value over time across retentive cohorts and if you get granular this can be split by install source. ROAS is essential as a cost center metric to optimize your early player experience and keep marketing wheels turning, but your top profit center metric that showcases your game’s potential years into the future is always LTV. After D60, your target ROAS for that cohort is but a dream that could go up in smoke due to rising CPIs, a change in marketing creative, or targeting strategy- yet you still have this user cohort to improve upon that LTV as long as they remain engaged in-game. - Have you noticed differences in monetization strategies between smaller and larger studios across models?
-
Smaller studios are more daring to test winning monetization strategies from other genres to gain a ROAS advantage and steal market share. Small studios need faster ROAS paybacks, so they are more willing to incorporate ads through IAA only or hybrid models and then extend their LTV ceilings by offering IAP pay-for-power progression.
This gives them the best of both worlds with lower CPIs and larger D3 revenues, which is the cutoff period for most LTV prediction curves to filter back into marketing algorithms that unlock budget.
As outlined in Hybrid Monetization Trends, IAA only games have upgraded with a basic but LTV accretive IAP store that sell ad blockers such as No Ad 30 day subscriptions or rewarded video ad skips which give the same rewards without wasted time. I see mini games and in-game tutorials showcasing casual gameplay for the first few levels, so they earn high ROAS on hypercasual CPIs before dropping players into midcore gameplay that may churn players, but highly coverts retained players.
Larger studios have deep pockets to sustain long payback periods and build brand loyalty- a key protection against the substitution effect. These games stay IAP only because they earn high LTVs, even if CPIs are high and ROAS takes 10 months to pay back. A few games in each casual subgenre stand out where hybrid games are the norm by marketing based on their lack of ads in-game (like Royal Match by Dream Games or Match Factory by Peak Games). This only works for 1-2 standout games, and studios employing this strategy must leap over high production cost bars with deep UA pockets. - Are you surprised that DAU and PU trends don’t always align outside seasonal events? What insights can we draw from this?
-
It’s important to consider Paying Users a lagging indicator of game health, because on average new DAU take about three days to convert with a very long tail across 60 days. Marketing campaigns and new liveops that increase installs or reactivations often lower the share of paying DAU because you’re diluting that pool- however we expect to see paying users rise over time in a healthy game.
Paying users so predictably increase that gamemakers more often use weekly active payers as a proxy for game health, because many payers only make a single purchase and their presence can mask economic stagnation.
Paying users should be more stable than DAU trends that largely contain game tourists who cruise and churn, because payers have already invested in progression.
DAU fluctuations not accompanied by retention or DAU/WAU changes are more likely caused by marketing changes like targeting lower spend geos who don’t convert to paying users at the same proportion as previous install cohorts.
Days where DAU upticks are prevalent may also represent game liveops that start by giving out more rewards to enable players to progress rapidly before pinching them towards the end to create conversion pressure. These “faucet” liveops generally bring DAU into the app to reap rewards while an increase in payers would come towards the end. Then liveops turn into a “sink” to capitalize on increased demand via IAP boosters, vanity content, and premium currency.
- What overlooked factors should people consider when choosing the hybrid model?
-
Hybrid monetization done right is a true investment- one that’s easier for games employing flexible backends, power systems, and economies built to leverage a multi-pronged monetization strategy.
This is why many hybrid apps we see today are less than two years old, with the exception of some large publishers who made a big investment implementing hybrid monetization into their popular legacy apps or bet on hybrid from the start. I suspect that much of the 20% YoY increases of apps using hybrid are new entrants to the market. If your ARPDAU is below 50 cents, then you can add 5-10% net revenue by adding in vanity IAP to an IAA game or putting ad monetization into an IAP game without much risk of cannibalization.
But to really succeed at hybrid, such as a 70/30 or 40/60 split -without cannibalization- requires consideration of technical challenges serving segmentation, video ads, and mediation or design challenges with faster content and power progression. This is alongside investment in retraining or hiring product talent to deploy best practices in both monetization streams. You could even hire a direct sales team if you’ve built a recognizable brand.
Speaking of brands, if you are building a new game for IP holders, it’s important to know IP holders may not allow ad monetization next to their brand. That means those minimum guarantees and revenue share agreements are all the more expensive when you also lose the ability to add 20% net revenue from savvy ad monetization. - Which app categories stick to IAA or IAP only, and why? Do you think the cannibalization "threat" is here to stay?
-
Many monetization models can work across gaming genres because the heart of this question lies in how your audience likes to progress: by handing over their attention or their wallets? The important considerations are target audience, ROAS payback period, max LTV, and protections from an economic principle called the “Substitution Effect”. I explain using the substitution effect to balance ad load vs. IAP in your hybrid game in my most recent blog post here for our astute readers.
The name of the hybrid game is slightly less ad friction than other games your audience plays. Your target audience dictates how much ad monetization you earn before cannibalizing IAP spend or lowering retention, judged against available substitutes. As long as your rewarded ads are more valuable to players or ad friction is lower than available substitutes in that subgenre, then there is no advantage churning to another game.
Generally, incorporating IAA alongside IAP monetization will earn revenue quickly to reduce your ROAS payback period, but without payer segmentation it limits your overall LTV. On the flipside, IAA-only will give you one of the fastest ROAS payback periods if your CPI is low enough but your LTV will be severely capped. That’s why primarily hyper and hybridcasual apps use IAA: this value trade off on genre-wide low LTVs is positive against substitute games who use a similar strategy.
If available substitute games are largely IAP only and you can stomach long payback periods, then IAP only is best. It builds brand loyalty to pull in organics and no cannibalizing ads pulling down your high LTV. Some games in these genres incorporated hybrid successfully, but they also target a slightly more casual niche inside core. An example is Whiteout Survival by Century Games- an RTS game that presents as a hypercasual for the beginning of gameplay. - Some say ROAS is now a top focus for monetization managers, overtaking metrics like CPI. Yet, in your research, LTV and ARPDU still lead in interest. What’s your view on these shifting metric priorities?
-
ROAS is an important summary metric that tells you how quickly (if at all) you are earning back your money against your CPI. This lets you manage cash flow across a portfolio of games that have different payback periods, but it’s only the starting point as a bridge to LTV in judging your game as a complete investment.
This is why in my Hybrid Monetization 2024 report with Gamesforum Ltd showed both hybrid, IAA, and IAP gamemakers rated LTV as their highest priority metric to improve in the next 6 months, while planning against the orchestration of LTV, CPM, and CPI trends by geo across many different teams is their number one challenge for 2025.
Your cohorted LTV reveals not only the earning ceiling of your investment, but if you are growing that value over time across retentive cohorts and if you get granular this can be split by install source. ROAS is essential as a cost center metric to optimize your early player experience and keep marketing wheels turning, but your top profit center metric that showcases your game’s potential years into the future is always LTV. After D60, your target ROAS for that cohort is but a dream that could go up in smoke due to rising CPIs, a change in marketing creative, or targeting strategy- yet you still have this user cohort to improve upon that LTV as long as they remain engaged in-game. - Have you noticed differences in monetization strategies between smaller and larger studios across models?
-
Smaller studios are more daring to test winning monetization strategies from other genres to gain a ROAS advantage and steal market share. Small studios need faster ROAS paybacks, so they are more willing to incorporate ads through IAA only or hybrid models and then extend their LTV ceilings by offering IAP pay-for-power progression.
This gives them the best of both worlds with lower CPIs and larger D3 revenues, which is the cutoff period for most LTV prediction curves to filter back into marketing algorithms that unlock budget.
As outlined in Hybrid Monetization Trends, IAA only games have upgraded with a basic but LTV accretive IAP store that sell ad blockers such as No Ad 30 day subscriptions or rewarded video ad skips which give the same rewards without wasted time. I see mini games and in-game tutorials showcasing casual gameplay for the first few levels, so they earn high ROAS on hypercasual CPIs before dropping players into midcore gameplay that may churn players, but highly coverts retained players.
Larger studios have deep pockets to sustain long payback periods and build brand loyalty- a key protection against the substitution effect. These games stay IAP only because they earn high LTVs, even if CPIs are high and ROAS takes 10 months to pay back. A few games in each casual subgenre stand out where hybrid games are the norm by marketing based on their lack of ads in-game (like Royal Match by Dream Games or Match Factory by Peak Games). This only works for 1-2 standout games, and studios employing this strategy must leap over high production cost bars with deep UA pockets.
Use ROAS and ARPU to fine-tune strategies, making sure your campaigns are aligned both before and after the install for the best results.
With certain models showing better ROAS, a hybrid approach could be your winning formula on Android.
Instead, focus on identifying the specific behaviors that drive engagement (DAU) and those that drive conversion (PU)
Combine these industry insights with your own data—like LTV and ROAS predictions—to make the best choices.
The iOS/Android gap narrows with ARPU, but ARPPU still lags. Focus on converting Android users into buyers.