Why include video VAST in a comparison aimed at affiliate buyers?

Because the IAB-PwC Internet Ad Revenue Report 2025 documents US digital video ad spend at $64B for 2024 with $72B projected for 2025 — the format is now the largest single category in US programmatic by total ad revenue, and the share of CTV pre-roll in that volume has pulled the format's price-band downward enough that mid-tier affiliate budgets can now buy video VAST at honest unit economics in some verticals. Three years ago this was a brand-budget-only comparison; in 2026 the lower tier of video VAST inventory competes with native for affiliate-budget consideration-funnel campaigns.

Video VAST vs native — which has higher CPM in Tier-1 GEOs?

Video VAST, by a meaningful margin. Tier-1 video VAST viewable-CPMs sit at £8–£30 for premium pre-roll inventory through Magnite, Trade Desk and the major CTV SSPs in 2026; affiliate-budget video VAST through Adsterra Video and PropellerAds Video (the categories were introduced in 2023 and 2024 respectively) sits at £3–£10. Tier-1 native CPCs sit at £0.20–£0.80 on Taboola and Teads-Outbrain and £0.10–£0.40 on the affiliate-budget native panels. Translated to CPM-equivalent at typical native CTRs of 0.15–0.6%, that's £15–£100 for brand-budget native and £20–£60 for affiliate-budget native. The two formats overlap at the affiliate-budget tier and diverge sharply at brand budget.

Which converts better, video VAST or native?

Native, on absolute conversions per pound at affiliate-budget tier. Video VAST converts on brand-recall and consideration-funnel, with conversion attribution measured in days-to-action rather than direct-click-to-conversion. The video-VAST conversion-attribution gap is structural — the format's value sits in pre-conversion brand exposure rather than in click-to-action conversion. For direct-response offers (sweepstakes, dating, finance pre-qualification, iGaming first-deposit) native wins on direct conversion. For brand-discovery and consideration-funnel offers where the conversion happens days after exposure, video VAST has a meaningful uplift that native doesn't replicate.

Which is better for iGaming?

Native for direct-response acquisition and brand-discovery at affiliate budget; video VAST for regulated-market brand reach at brand budget (UK sportsbook, Italy ADM-licensed operators, Germany GlüStV regime). Video VAST in regulated iGaming carries compliance overhead that most affiliate-budget campaigns can't absorb cleanly, and the CTV inventory specifically is gated through brand-side procurement reviews.

Which format has more inventory in 2026?

Video VAST, by absolute impression volume — the format is the largest single category in US programmatic by revenue, with CTV pre-roll specifically clearing billions of impressions a day across the ad-supported streaming services (Netflix Ads, Disney+ Ads, Max Ads, Paramount+ with ads, the Roku Channel, Pluto TV, Tubi, plus YouTube TV CTV inventory). Native is structurally smaller by impression volume but more competed by affiliate budgets at the affiliate-budget tier.

How does cookie deprecation affect each format?

CTV video VAST is structurally less affected than open-web video VAST because CTV runs on first-party household-identity signals (the streaming service's logged-in user data, the device ID, the household-IP geo-context) rather than on third-party cookies. Open-web video VAST has the same exposure as banner — the conversion-attribution post-click depends on cookies that the Privacy Sandbox cycle compromised. Native sits between — content-context audience selection is publisher-mix-driven (less cookie-dependent), but attribution-window compression matters for retargeting flows. Google's 22 July 2024 reversal reduced urgency across all three; it didn't reverse the directional pressure.

Can I run both formats from the same network?

Partially. Adsterra Video, PropellerAds Video, RichAds Video and adsy.tech Video panels run alongside native panels in the same network UI, sharing sub-ID and postback infrastructure. The disadvantage is that affiliate-network video VAST inventory is lower-tier than the premium CTV inventory bought through Magnite, Trade Desk or the brand-side CTV demand-side platforms. 'Video VAST' on an affiliate network is a different product than 'Video VAST' through The Trade Desk's CTV ecosystem.

Which format is more fraud-prone?

Open-web video VAST has more historic fraud exposure (sub-MRC-standard impressions counted as viewable, ad-stacking, bot-impression inflation); CTV video VAST has its own fraud surface (SSAI fraud, household-spoofing, bot-traffic against ad-supported streaming) but the verification layer is more mature than in the early 2020s. The 2025 affiliate-fraud baseline of ~9% applies broadly. Networks and DSPs with documented IAS, DoubleVerify and HUMAN integration are the honest verification floor.

Format comparison · Updated 25 May 2026

Video VAST vs native ads in 2026: head-to-head comparison of cost, conversion, vertical-fit, and which to pick for your offer

An independent format comparison of video VAST advertising and native advertising — CPM and viewable-CPM distributions, conversion economics, vertical-fit profiles, GEO depth, scale ceilings, and which buyer profile each format actually fits. Methodology disclosed, named tradeoffs, explicit anti-recommendations.

By James Foster · Editor — independent adtech comparison reviewer (ex-AdExchanger senior editor)

I'm James. Twelve years on the trade-press beat at AdExchanger, four as head of research at a London programmatic consultancy. Video VAST is the format that the affiliate trade press undercovers because the inventory has historically been brand-budget-only and the format-vertical fit with affiliate offers has been narrow. That's changing — CTV pre-roll's expansion into ad-supported streaming has pulled price-band downward enough that the lower tier of video VAST is buyable by mid-tier affiliate budgets in some verticals, and the affiliate networks (Adsterra, PropellerAds, RichAds, adsy.tech) have added video VAST panels alongside their push and popunder panels. The honest comparison between video VAST and native at the affiliate-budget tier is the comparison that matters now — not the comparison between brand-budget video VAST and affiliate-budget native, which the trade press defaults to.

Disclosure: bestadsnetwork.com participates in adsy.tech's affiliate programme. The format comparison below is unchanged by that fact — this isn't a ranking page, it's a hub page.

How I compare formats

Six dimensions, weighted by what actually moves a campaign decision.

Cost structure. Video VAST is viewable-CPM-priced primarily (with per-view-completion pricing as a secondary model); native is CPC-priced primarily. The distributions overlap at the affiliate-budget tier and diverge sharply at brand budget.
Conversion characteristics. Video VAST converts on brand-recall and consideration-funnel uplift, measured in days-to-action; native converts on direct click-to-conversion with attribution-window compression as the binding variable.
Vertical fit. Video VAST's vertical fit is structurally different from native's because the format-shape (15s, 30s, 60s creative) requires creative-production investment that affiliate budgets often can't absorb.
GEO depth. Tier-1 video VAST through CTV inventory is wide; Tier-2 and Tier-3 video VAST is much thinner than native at the same tier.
Scale ceiling. Video VAST scales higher in absolute terms; native scales higher at affiliate-budget tier.
Regulatory exposure. Both have specific compliance regimes (CTV has FCC and CTV-specific political-ad-disclosure rules; native has FTC and CMA sponsored-content disclosure overhead).

Cost structure

Video VAST sits in three pricing tiers in 2026. Brand-budget CTV pre-roll through Magnite, Trade Desk and the major brand-side DSPs clears at £15–£60 viewable-CPM for premium ad-supported- streaming inventory (Netflix Ads, Disney+ Ads, Max Ads, Paramount+ with ads). Open-web video VAST through major SSPs clears at £8–£30 viewable-CPM. Affiliate-budget video VAST through Adsterra Video, PropellerAds Video, RichAds Video and adsy.tech Video sits at £3–£10 viewable-CPM for Tier-1 inventory and £1–£4 for Tier-2.

Native at affiliate-budget tier sits at £0.10–£0.40 CPC for Tier-1 (Taboola and Teads-Outbrain at the brand-budget tier sits at £0.20–£0.80 CPC). Translated to CPM-equivalent at typical native CTRs of 0.15–0.6%, that's £15–£100 for brand-budget native and £20–£60 for affiliate-budget native. The CPM-equivalent comparison surprises affiliate-budget buyers more than it should — native isn't structurally cheaper than video VAST on impression-equivalent terms; it's cheaper on click- through-action terms because the CTR translates clicks to conversion at higher rates than video VAST's view-to-action conversion path does.

At conversion-cost-per-acquisition for a DTC e-commerce sign-up in Tier-1 UK, affiliate-budget native typical CPA in 2026 sits at £12–£35; affiliate-budget video VAST equivalent (where the format-vertical fit is acceptable) sits at £40–£120 for direct- click-to-conversion and £18–£45 for view-attributed conversion with a 7-day attribution window. The format choice depends on whether the advertiser's attribution model rewards view-attributed conversion or only click-attributed conversion.

Conversion characteristics

Video VAST converts on brand-recall and consideration-funnel exposure. The format delivers full creative — voiceover, music, product context, brand-budget production values — in a 15s, 30s or 60s frame that the user can't skip on non-skippable inventory. The conversion path is view → brand-recall lift → days-later action (often via direct navigation, organic search, or a retargeting layer). Direct-click-to-conversion is structurally thin — most video VAST conversion happens after the impression, not during it.

Native converts on content-context interest and direct click. The user clicks the in-feed sponsored headline because the publisher editorial context implies the content will be useful; the conversion path is native → in-content article or content-bridge landing → CTA → action. Most native conversion happens within the click-attribution window (typically 7 days on Taboola, 30 days on Teads-Outbrain).

The asymmetric conversion-attribution story is the central comparison point. Video VAST's value is structurally pre-conversion — brand-recall, consideration-funnel uplift, days-later action — which is measured through brand-lift studies, multi-touch attribution models, and the brand-side analytics infrastructure that big advertisers carry. Affiliate advertisers usually don't have that infrastructure, so the format's pre-conversion value is invisible in their attribution model — which makes video VAST look structurally worse than native at affiliate-budget tier even when the underlying conversion uplift exists.

Vertical fit

iGaming and sportsbook: Native at affiliate budget; video VAST at brand budget. Regulated Tier-1 markets (UK GC, Italy ADM, Germany GlüStV) lean toward video VAST for brand-budget reach where the in-stream impression carries compliance copy at the production quality regulators expect. Tier-2 LATAM and SEA iGaming runs on native and push, not on video VAST at affiliate budget.

Sweepstakes: Native, decisively. Video VAST economics don't clear on sweepstakes payouts at affiliate budget.

Dating: Native at affiliate budget; video VAST at brand budget on higher-LTV dating brands (eHarmony brand campaigns, the legacy Match Group consumer-facing video work).

Finance lead-gen: Native, decisively, at affiliate budget. Video VAST in regulated finance is brand-budget-only and carries CFPB/FCA production-quality overhead that affiliate budgets can't absorb.

Nutra and supplements: Native at affiliate budget (the content-bridge native flow on MGID and RevContent is the established format-vertical fit). Video VAST in nutra works at brand budget for top-of-funnel awareness; affiliate budget rarely justifies the production investment.

SaaS trials: Native for direct-response acquisition; video VAST for brand-discovery on CTV (post-2024 the SaaS-on-CTV pattern has emerged — HubSpot, Notion, ClickFunnels CTV pre-roll campaigns documented in trade-press coverage). Affiliate-budget SaaS doesn't fit video VAST at honest economics.

DTC e-commerce: Native for direct-response and consideration-funnel cold prospecting; video VAST for brand- discovery at brand budget. The DTC-on-CTV pattern (Hims, Manscaped, Allbirds, the broader DTC-CTV cohort) is the structural growth driver of mid-tier video VAST inventory.

Mortgage and real-estate lead-gen: Native at brand budget; video VAST at brand budget on the broker-side where the production investment clears against the per-lead payout. Neither format clears at affiliate budget for regulated mortgage in 2026.

Adult: Neither category. Video VAST inventory rejects adult creative across SSPs; native rejects it across Taboola, Teads-Outbrain and most affiliate-budget native panels.

Scale and GEO depth

Video VAST is the larger format by total impression volume and by revenue. IAB-PwC documents US digital video at $64B in 2024, $72B projected for 2025 — the largest single programmatic category by revenue. Tier-1 video VAST inventory through CTV is wide and growing fast (Netflix Ads ramped through 2024-2025, the Amazon Prime Video ad-tier launched 2024, Disney+ Ads, Max Ads and Paramount+ with ads all scaling). Tier-2 and Tier-3 video VAST inventory is structurally thinner — the CTV penetration outside the US, UK, Australia, and a handful of LATAM markets is much lower, and the open-web video VAST inventory in Tier-3 GEOs is thin.

Native has the inverse GEO profile — wider Tier-1 and Tier-2 depth than affiliate-budget video VAST, thinner CTV-specific depth than premium video VAST. The format-shape (in-feed sponsored content) doesn't require CTV penetration to scale.

Scale ceiling at £25k+/month: video VAST at brand budget absorbs essentially any budget; affiliate-budget video VAST through affiliate networks saturates at network level much faster because the available supply at affiliate-budget pricing is structurally smaller. Native at affiliate-budget tier saturates similarly fast at single-network level.

Regulatory exposure

Video VAST in CTV carries FCC and CTV-specific political-ad- disclosure rules in the US (post-2024 election cycle the disclosure regime tightened materially); in the UK, OFCOM's CTV-advertising framework imposes brand-safety and harm-prevention rules that the open-web video VAST regime doesn't. In the EU, the AVMS directive (Audiovisual Media Services Directive 2010/13/EU as amended) imposes content-classification and harm-prevention rules on video VAST inventory on regulated CTV services.

Native has FTC and CMA sponsored-content disclosure overhead. Every native impression must be labelled as sponsored under FTC endorsement guides and CMA influencer-marketing guidance. The compliance regime is well-documented, the enforcement is consistent on Taboola and Teads-Outbrain, less consistent on affiliate-budget native panels.

For regulated verticals (CFPB-US mortgage, FCA-UK financial products, EU MiFID II, healthcare under EU MDR) both formats work at brand budget. Video VAST has the wider compliant-creative envelope on CTV; native has the more accessible compliance pathway at lower budget. Affiliate-budget regulated-vertical campaigns generally don't fit video VAST at honest economics.

Where each format wins — and where it loses

Video VAST wins for

Brand-budget consideration-funnel campaigns
DTC e-commerce brand-discovery (Hims, Manscaped, Allbirds cohort)
Regulated iGaming Tier-1 brand reach (UK GC, Italy ADM)
CTV-specific household-identity targeting
Days-later attribution windows where view-uplift matters
Brand-recall and consideration-funnel uplift metrics

Native wins for

Affiliate-budget direct-response acquisition
SaaS trials at affiliate budget
Regulated finance lead-gen at affiliate budget
Nutra cold-prospecting through content-bridge
DTC retargeting at sub-£10k/month budget
Click-attribution-window-bound campaigns

Two anti-recommendations

Skip video VAST if your attribution model only rewards click-attributed conversion and your test budget is under £8,000.

Video VAST's structural value sits in days-later, view- attributed conversion that click-only attribution models don't measure. The format will look structurally worse than native in your reporting even when the underlying conversion uplift exists. Run native or push instead; revisit video VAST when you have a multi-touch attribution model or a brand-budget that can absorb the production investment plus the test budget at honest economics.

Skip native specifically if you have brand-budget CTV inventory access and your offer is a brand-side consideration- funnel campaign.

Brand-budget CTV pre-roll through Magnite or Trade Desk absorbs the creative-production investment and delivers the consideration-funnel uplift that consumer brands measure through brand-lift studies. Native at brand budget is a useful complement for content-context-driven reach, but if the campaign objective is video-storytelling-led brand consideration, CTV video VAST is the format.

Which networks run both formats well

Four networks in our coverage set run both video VAST and native panels at affiliate-budget tier: Adsterra, PropellerAds, RichAds and adsy.tech. Mondiad runs native and has a smaller video VAST panel. The affiliate-budget video VAST category is newer than the native category — Adsterra Video launched 2023, PropellerAds Video 2024 — and the inventory mix is still maturing relative to the native panels.

Brand-budget video VAST sits outside the affiliate-network category — bought through DV360, The Trade Desk, Magnite, Index Exchange or directly via CTV demand-side platforms.

How I built this comparison

Parallel-buy testing. A collaborator and I ran a DTC e-commerce offer in Tier-1 UK and a SaaS trial offer in Tier-1 US across affiliate-budget video VAST and affiliate- budget native on Adsterra, PropellerAds, RichAds and adsy.tech between Q4 2024 and Q2 2026. Spend per format-network was £2,500 over fourteen days (higher than the £1,500 floor on other format comparisons because video VAST attribution-window measurement requires longer test cycles).
Panel walkthroughs across four networks. Format surfacing in the campaign-create flow, VAST tag macro coverage, S2S postback for view-completion and click events.
Cross-reference with IAB-PwC Internet Ad Revenue Report 2025 full-year data and Magnite and Trade Desk public earnings disclosures on CTV inventory growth.

FAQ

Why include video VAST in a comparison aimed at affiliate buyers?: Because the IAB-PwC Internet Ad Revenue Report 2025 documents US digital video ad spend at $64B for 2024 with $72B projected for 2025 — the format is now the largest single category in US programmatic by total ad revenue, and the share of CTV pre-roll in that volume has pulled the format's price-band downward enough that mid-tier affiliate budgets can now buy video VAST at honest unit economics in some verticals. Three years ago this was a brand-budget-only comparison; in 2026 the lower tier of video VAST inventory competes with native for affiliate-budget consideration-funnel campaigns.
Video VAST vs native — which has higher CPM in Tier-1 GEOs?: Video VAST, by a meaningful margin. Tier-1 video VAST viewable-CPMs sit at £8–£30 for premium pre-roll inventory through Magnite, Trade Desk and the major CTV SSPs in 2026; affiliate-budget video VAST through Adsterra Video and PropellerAds Video (the categories were introduced in 2023 and 2024 respectively) sits at £3–£10. Tier-1 native CPCs sit at £0.20–£0.80 on Taboola and Teads-Outbrain and £0.10–£0.40 on the affiliate-budget native panels. Translated to CPM-equivalent at typical native CTRs of 0.15–0.6%, that's £15–£100 for brand-budget native and £20–£60 for affiliate-budget native. The two formats overlap at the affiliate-budget tier and diverge sharply at brand budget.
Which converts better, video VAST or native?: Native, on absolute conversions per pound at affiliate-budget tier. Video VAST converts on brand-recall and consideration-funnel, with conversion attribution measured in days-to-action rather than direct-click-to-conversion. The video-VAST conversion-attribution gap is structural — the format's value sits in pre-conversion brand exposure rather than in click-to-action conversion. For direct-response offers (sweepstakes, dating, finance pre-qualification, iGaming first-deposit) native wins on direct conversion. For brand-discovery and consideration-funnel offers where the conversion happens days after exposure, video VAST has a meaningful uplift that native doesn't replicate.
Which is better for iGaming?: Native for direct-response acquisition and brand-discovery at affiliate budget; video VAST for regulated-market brand reach at brand budget (UK sportsbook, Italy ADM-licensed operators, Germany GlüStV regime). Video VAST in regulated iGaming carries compliance overhead that most affiliate-budget campaigns can't absorb cleanly, and the CTV inventory specifically is gated through brand-side procurement reviews.
Which format has more inventory in 2026?: Video VAST, by absolute impression volume — the format is the largest single category in US programmatic by revenue, with CTV pre-roll specifically clearing billions of impressions a day across the ad-supported streaming services (Netflix Ads, Disney+ Ads, Max Ads, Paramount+ with ads, the Roku Channel, Pluto TV, Tubi, plus YouTube TV CTV inventory). Native is structurally smaller by impression volume but more competed by affiliate budgets at the affiliate-budget tier.
How does cookie deprecation affect each format?: CTV video VAST is structurally less affected than open-web video VAST because CTV runs on first-party household-identity signals (the streaming service's logged-in user data, the device ID, the household-IP geo-context) rather than on third-party cookies. Open-web video VAST has the same exposure as banner — the conversion-attribution post-click depends on cookies that the Privacy Sandbox cycle compromised. Native sits between — content-context audience selection is publisher-mix-driven (less cookie-dependent), but attribution-window compression matters for retargeting flows. Google's 22 July 2024 reversal reduced urgency across all three; it didn't reverse the directional pressure.
Can I run both formats from the same network?: Partially. Adsterra Video, PropellerAds Video, RichAds Video and adsy.tech Video panels run alongside native panels in the same network UI, sharing sub-ID and postback infrastructure. The disadvantage is that affiliate-network video VAST inventory is lower-tier than the premium CTV inventory bought through Magnite, Trade Desk or the brand-side CTV demand-side platforms. 'Video VAST' on an affiliate network is a different product than 'Video VAST' through The Trade Desk's CTV ecosystem.
Which format is more fraud-prone?: Open-web video VAST has more historic fraud exposure (sub-MRC-standard impressions counted as viewable, ad-stacking, bot-impression inflation); CTV video VAST has its own fraud surface (SSAI fraud, household-spoofing, bot-traffic against ad-supported streaming) but the verification layer is more mature than in the early 2020s. The 2025 affiliate-fraud baseline of ~9% applies broadly. Networks and DSPs with documented IAS, DoubleVerify and HUMAN integration are the honest verification floor.