Last updated: September 2026 · Reviewed by the Partner Federation partnerships team, with two decades of combined experience in online trading and brokerage partnerships.
On this page
- Quick recap: what each model actually is
- Side-by-side comparison
- Worked example: the same referred client, three models
- Which one pays more?
- Who each model suits best
- Can they be combined?
- FAQ
Quick recap: what each model actually is
These are the three ongoing (non-CPA) ways a forex or CFD broker pays a partner for referred clients who keep trading. They’re often used loosely as if they were interchangeable — they aren’t. Each is calculated on a different basis, which is exactly why they can produce very different payouts from the same referred client.
Revenue share pays a partner a percentage of the broker’s net revenue — effectively the broker’s own profit and loss — generated by a referred client’s trading, for as long as that client keeps trading. See Revenue Share: Meaning, Rates & How It Works for the full breakdown.
Lot rebate pays a fixed dollar amount per lot a referred client trades, regardless of whether that trading was profitable for the broker. See Lot Rebate: Meaning, Rates & How It Works for the full breakdown.
Spread share pays a percentage of the broker’s spread markup — the gap between the buy and sell price — captured from a referred client’s trades. See Spread Share: Meaning, Rates & How It Works for the full breakdown.
Side-by-side comparison
| Revenue Share | Lot Rebate | Spread Share | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Calculated on | % of the broker’s net revenue (P&L) from the client | Flat $ amount per lot traded | % of the spread markup captured per lot |
| Typical rate | 20–40% of net revenue | $3–$12 per lot | 30–40% of the spread markup |
| Depends on client being profitable for the broker? | Yes — pays less (or nothing) if the client’s trading loses the broker money | No — pays on volume alone | No — pays on volume and spread size alone |
| Predictability for the partner | Lower — swings with the broker’s own P&L on the client | Higher — can be estimated directly from expected lot volume | Higher — can be estimated from volume and typical spread markup |
| Capped? | No | No | No |
| Most sensitive to | How the client trades (win/loss pattern, holding time) | How much the client trades (raw volume) | Which instruments the client trades (spread size varies a lot by pair/asset) |
Worked example: the same referred client, three models
Illustrative only — figures are industry-typical ranges already used elsewhere on this site, not a real broker’s published terms. These three payouts are shown side by side for the same referred client, but they aren’t a true apples-to-apples comparison, because each model is calculated on a different underlying number — that’s the point of laying them out together.
| Model | Basis for this client | Rate used | Monthly payout |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lot Rebate | Trades 20 standard lots/month | $6 per lot | $120/month |
| Spread Share | Trades 20 standard lots/month on a pair with a 0.8-pip broker markup (~$8/lot) | 35% of the spread markup | ~$56/month |
| Revenue Share | Generates roughly $70/month in net revenue for the broker (spread, commission, and financing combined) | 25% of net revenue | $17.50/month |
Notice the lot rebate figure is the highest of the three here — that’s a function of the specific rate and volume assumed, not a rule. A client who trades the same 20 lots but generates very little spread or net revenue for the broker (a very tight-spread account, or a break-even trader) would pay a lot rebate partner the same $120/month regardless, while the revenue share and spread share partners would earn less. Flip the client profile — high net revenue relative to volume — and revenue share can overtake lot rebate instead. The rate and the client’s trading behavior both matter more than which model looks best on paper.
Which one pays more?
There’s no universal answer — it depends on the trading behavior of the specific clients a partner refers:
Revenue share tends to reward “quality” over quantity. A smaller number of clients who trade consistently and generate solid net revenue for the broker can out-earn a larger number of low-margin clients under this model.
Lot rebate tends to reward volume, full stop. A high-frequency trader who churns lots but isn’t especially profitable for the broker (or even loses money for the broker) still pays the same rebate as a low-frequency, highly profitable one. This is why lot rebate is often the most predictable model to project — and also why some brokers price it more conservatively than revenue share, to avoid overpaying on volume that isn’t actually profitable to them.
Spread share sits in between, and is instrument-dependent. It rewards volume like lot rebate does, but the payout scales with the size of the spread markup on whatever the client actually trades — a client concentrated in wide-spread instruments pays more than one trading tight-spread majors at the same lot volume.
None of this can be answered in the abstract without knowing a specific broker’s rate card and a partner’s actual referred-client mix — this section is about the mechanics that drive the difference, not a claim that one model universally pays more.
Who each model suits best
Revenue share suits partners who refer a smaller, higher-intent audience — people likely to become active, sustained traders rather than one-off signups — since the model rewards depth of engagement over raw signup count.
Lot rebate suits partners who can drive genuine trading volume, especially through active or high-frequency traders, and who want a rate they can forecast without needing insight into the broker’s own margins on each client.
Spread share suits partners whose referred clients concentrate on instruments with meaningful spread markup (as opposed to ultra-tight-spread majors), and who, like lot-rebate partners, want a payout tied to activity rather than the broker’s net P&L.
Can they be combined?
Not usually as three simultaneous streams on the same client — a broker typically sets one ongoing basis per partnership agreement, since revenue share, lot rebate, and spread share are three different ways of pricing the same underlying value (the client’s trading activity), not three separate revenue streams stacked on top of each other. What is common is pairing one of these three with a smaller upfront CPA payment in a hybrid arrangement, or negotiating which of the three ongoing bases applies as part of setting up a deal. A partner running programs with multiple brokers can certainly end up on a different model with each one.
FAQ
Is one of these three models always the best choice?
No. Which one earns more depends on the trading behavior of the specific clients a partner refers, not on the model itself — see the “Which one pays more?” section above.
Do all brokers offer all three models?
No. Availability varies by broker; some offer only revenue share, others only lot rebate, and some offer a choice or a hybrid. Check the specific broker’s partnership terms.
Can I switch from one model to another later?
Sometimes, depending on the broker’s terms — this is worth asking about directly before signing a partnership agreement, since not every program allows a mid-relationship switch.
Which model is least exposed to the broker’s own trading losses?
Lot rebate and spread share both pay on volume rather than broker profitability, so neither depends on whether the broker made money on a given client. Revenue share is the only one of the three tied directly to the broker’s net P&L on that client.
How do I know which rate range is competitive?
Compare against the typical ranges on this page (20–40% for revenue share, $3–$12/lot for lot rebate, 30–40% for spread share) and against the Getting Paid page for how and when payouts actually get released.
Does a hybrid deal use all three at once?
No — a hybrid typically pairs a smaller CPA with just one of these three ongoing bases, not all three together. See Hybrid Programs.
Related terms
Revenue Share · Lot Rebate · Spread Share · CPA vs. Revenue Share · Hybrid Programs