Adult TrafficAbout This Site
Last updated: 31 July 2026
This site is a working reference for two groups of people: media buyers who spend money on 18+ ad inventory, and site owners who sell it. It exists because the comparison articles ranking for Adult Traffic copy each other, quote deposit floors that changed two years ago, and almost never show what a network pays a publisher on the way out. We publish one thing properly instead of many things thinly: a seven-network comparison built from the platforms’ own documents, the regulatory events that moved Tier-1 supply in 2025 and 2026, and the format economics that sit under both. Every figure carries the date it was read, and every gap in the data is left visible rather than filled with a plausible number.
What the site covers
The scope is deliberately narrow, because a narrow page that is right beats a broad page that is stale. We cover entry costs for advertisers, payout floors and schedules for publishers, buying models, ad formats and the account-level controls that decide whether a campaign can be optimised at all. We cover the age-verification laws in the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Australia only insofar as they change which inventory an exchange can actually sell, because that is the part a media plan depends on. We cover the difference between an auctioned impression and a sold “visit”, since that distinction is where most first budgets are lost.
What the site refuses to cover
We do not review adult content, rank sites by content, or link to tube sites, performers or piracy indexes. We do not publish traffic-package offers that sell a fixed number of visitors, because that product is not advertising inventory and cannot be verified at placement level. We do not accept guest posts, sponsored reviews or paid mentions inside factual tables, and the reasons are set out in our advertising policy. Anything that would require us to state a number we cannot source stays off the site entirely.
How a page here is produced
Research comes first and writing comes last. A page starts as a list of questions a buyer or publisher would have to answer before spending money, then each question is matched to a document that can answer it: a payment page, a terms document, a regulator’s report, a company statement. Only questions with a real source become sections; the rest are dropped or marked as unresolved. The drafting stage adds no facts, and the final pass checks each figure against the note that captured it, which is the process described in how we check and governed by our editorial policy.
Who is behind it
The analysis is written by Smith Jones, a performance media buyer with fourteen years in pop, push, in-page and native inventory across dating, VPN and sweepstakes campaigns, plus publisher-side experience running mediation on mixed 18+ and mainstream sites. That background decides which questions get asked. It does not, by itself, make a number true, which is why the site separates what has been run first hand from what has been read in a document, and says which is which on the page itself.
How the site is funded
Through a single affiliate relationship, with AdsCompass. Sign-up buttons carry tracking parameters, and a registration that follows one can generate a commission at no cost to the person registering. That relationship decides which platform is used as the worked example when a feature needs a named owner; it does not decide what any factual column says, and the partner’s drawbacks are printed in the same table as its strengths. The full arrangement is set out in the affiliate disclosure.
Why a narrow site instead of a wide one
A site that publishes one subject properly can be checked; a site that publishes forty can only be trusted. We chose the narrow version because the audience here spends real money on the basis of two or three numbers, and those numbers change without notice. Keeping the surface small means every figure can be re-opened at its source on a fixed cycle rather than aging quietly in an archive nobody revisits. It also means we can say honestly which parts of the subject we have not covered, instead of publishing a thin page on each of them to catch a keyword.
What we would decline to publish
Three things, regardless of what they paid. A row in the network comparison in exchange for money, because the moment one row is purchasable the whole table is worthless. A rewritten drawback: the limits printed next to the partner network cost us revenue and stay in anyway. And a figure we cannot source, however confident the person supplying it sounds, since an unsourced number is indistinguishable from an invented one once it is published. The commercial boundaries are written out in the advertising policy.
Corrections
A wrong number costs us more than it costs you, so corrections are welcome and are treated as urgent. Send the page, the figure and the source that contradicts it, and we check it against the platform’s own documentation within two working days. Confirmed errors are fixed, the last-checked date moves, and material corrections are noted on the page rather than made silently. Use contact for anything that needs a human.
For the rest of the site: use of the site is governed by the terms and conditions, data handling is described in the privacy policy. Beyond that, cookie practice is described in the cookie policy.