Coinzilla vs Bitmedia vs Cointraffic: what each publishes

A teardown using only what the three networks say in public. Each of them does something better than we do, and that is in here too.

Most comparison posts in this category are affiliate pages wearing a lab coat. This one has two rules that make it harder to write and easier to check: it uses only what each network states on its own public pages, and it names something each one does better than PraxAds.

The disclosure scorecard

Published on the public site	Coinzilla	Bitmedia	Cointraffic	PraxAds
Advertiser minimum	No	No	No	Yes - $100
Actual prices	No	No - models only	No	Yes - $1.50-$4.00 CPM
Publisher revenue share	No	No	No	Yes - 80% founding, 75% standard
Publisher payout minimum	No	No	No	Yes - $25
Publisher traffic bar	No	No	Yes - 5,000/mo	Yes - 10,000/mo
Payout schedule	Yes - weekly or monthly	No	No	Yes - NET-15

Coinzilla

The most established name here, with the most polished public pages. What those pages do not contain is a number: no advertiser minimum, no CPM, no revenue share, no payout floor.

What Coinzilla does better than us: payout options and cadence. Publishers are paid weekly or monthly, by cryptocurrency or bank transfer. We pay twice a month, in stablecoin only. For a publisher who needs fiat in a bank account, or who wants money weekly, that is straightforwardly the better arrangement, and no amount of transparency on our side changes it.

Bitmedia

Bitmedia names its pricing models - CPC and CPM, with a smart-bid feature - without attaching figures to them. You learn the shape of the deal but not its size.

What Bitmedia does better than us: it is an actual bidding platform. Automated bid optimisation across self-serve inventory is real technology, and we do not have it. PraxAds matches campaigns by hand at fixed prices, which is honest about what it is but is not the same product. If you want an algorithm allocating budget across placements in real time, we are the wrong choice today.

Cointraffic

Cointraffic publishes exactly one hard number on the pages I read, and it is a useful one: 5,000+ monthly visitors to be considered as a publisher. In a category where entry requirements are implied rather than stated, putting the bar in writing beats another paragraph about premium quality.

What Cointraffic does better than us: that bar is lower than ours. We ask for 10,000 monthly pageviews. If you run a crypto site with 6,000 visitors a month, Cointraffic will look at you and we will not. Calling that higher standards is a self-serving way to describe being less useful to that publisher.

What this scorecard does not measure

Disclosure is not delivery. A network that publishes everything and has no inventory is worse for an advertiser than one that publishes nothing and has the audience you need. All three of these networks have been running for years and have distribution PraxAds does not have. That is the column where we lose, and it is not a small one.

This table measures one thing: how much you can find out before you commit. We think that is what this category is worst at, which is why we compete on it. It is not the only thing that matters and the post should not be read as if it were.

Corrections

If any network here publishes a figure I have marked not published, send the URL and this post gets an appended, dated correction rather than a quiet edit. That rule applies to the PraxAds column too.