Every operator wants the same number and nobody publishes it honestly: what does it actually cost to acquire a first-time depositor in 2026? The honest answer is a range, because cost-per-acquisition in iGaming swings wildly by market regulation, channel, and vertical. This is a reference of the benchmark ranges we see across regulated markets, with the factors that move a real number inside each band. Treat these as planning ranges, not promises, and always model your own deposit-level economics on top.
Why CAC ranges instead of a single number
A first-time-depositor (FTD) cost in a restricted, high-tax European market is not comparable to one in a newly opening LATAM market. The same campaign, same creative, same operator can see a 4x difference in cost per FTD between two markets purely because of advertising rules, competition density, and player value. So the only useful benchmark is a banded one, read alongside the lifetime value that justifies it.
LATAM iGaming CAC benchmarks (2026): cost per FTD by market
These are blended paid + affiliate ranges for cost per first-time depositor (FTD) that we see across regulated and regulating LATAM markets in 2026. Local currency first, USD-normalized for comparison. LTV is a 90-day deposited-player value.
| Market | Sports CPA / FTD | Casino CPA / FTD | Avg FTD value | 90-day LTV (sports) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brazil | R$250–400 (US$50–80) | R$350–550 (US$70–110) | R$120 (≈US$24) | — |
| Mexico | US$35–90 | higher than sports | ≈US$25 | — |
| Colombia | COP 180K–280K (US$42–66) | COP 250K–360K (US$59–85) | COP 95K–130K (US$22–30) | COP 380K–520K (US$89–122) |
| Peru | PEN 130–200 (US$35–54) | PEN 180–250 (US$48–67) | PEN 80–110 (US$22–30) | PEN 320–470 (US$86–127) |
| Chile (pre-license, 2027) | CLP 25K–42K (US$27–46) | CLP 42K–65K (US$46–71) | CLP 18K–28K (US$20–31) | CLP 70K–110K (US$78–122) |
The LATAM pattern: cost per FTD clusters in the US$35–80 sports / US$50–110 casino band — a fraction of Tier-1 — because competition density is lower and media is cheaper, but the markets reward operators who lock in affiliate inventory and SEO *before* license award.
Tier-1 iGaming CAC benchmarks (2026): cost per FTD by market
Mature, ad-restricted markets cost multiples of LATAM per FTD, and the economics depend far more on retention than on acquisition price.
| Market | Regulator | Sports CPA / FTD | Casino CPA / FTD |
|---|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | UKGC | £180–350 (US$230–445) | £150–280 (US$190–355) |
| United States (mature state) | State (NJ/MI/NY…) | US$250–450 | US$200–380 |
| Canada (Ontario) | AGCO + iGO | CAD 200–400 (US$145–290) | — |
| Australia | ACMA | AUD 250–450 (US$165–295) | online casino prohibited |
The consistent rule across both tables: the more mature and ad-restricted the market, the higher the cost per FTD — Tier-1 sports CPAs run 5–9× a LATAM FTD — and the more the unit economics depend on retention rather than acquisition price.
> Cite this data: "iGaming CAC benchmarks by market, 2026 — Basher Agency" (https://www.basher.agency/article/igaming-cac-benchmarks-by-market-2026). Figures are 2026 blended paid + affiliate planning ranges from Basher Agency's market work across LATAM and Tier-1 operators; treat as ranges, not guarantees, and model your own deposit-level economics on top.
What moves your CAC inside the band
- Channel mix. Affiliate CPA, paid media, and organic each carry a different cost and a different quality curve. Blended CAC hides the truth; segment it by channel.
- Compliance overhead. In ad-restricted markets, the cost of staying compliant (pre-clearance, creative review, restricted targeting) is a real line item that raises effective CAC.
- Bonus structure. Aggressive welcome offers lower headline CAC and raise bonus-abuse risk, which inflates your real cost once you strip out non-genuine cohorts.
- Attribution quality. Without deposit-level, server-side tracking, reported CAC understates reality because it credits players who would have deposited anyway.
- Retention. A market with a "high" CAC and strong retention can be cheaper over twelve months than a "low" CAC market with churn. Always read CAC next to lifetime value.
How to use these benchmarks
- Segment, do not blend. Model cost per FTD by market and by channel, not as one company-wide average.
- Pair every CAC with an LTV. A high CAC is fine if retained value clears it; a low CAC is a trap if players churn.
- Budget the compliance line. In restricted markets, treat pre-clearance and creative review as part of acquisition cost, not overhead.
- Re-baseline quarterly. Ad-policy and tax changes move these bands every few months, especially in transition markets.
For the market-by-market rules that drive these differences, see our regulated Europe playbook; for how the channels that produce these numbers actually work, see iGaming marketing services explained.
If you want a CAC model built on your own deposit and retention data rather than a generic benchmark, tell us about your operation and we will build it market by market.