eCPM usually ranks rewarded, interstitial, then banner, but that ranking does not decide the best format. A rewarded video in a Japanese mid-core game in Q4 can reach $18 eCPM, while the same placement in a hyper-casual game aimed at APAC emerging markets in Q1 may reach $2.50. A banner in either case may earn $0.40 eCPM yet serve 10 impressions per session, versus 1.5 for rewarded. The real question is which mix produces the most revenue per daily active user for your app, market, and timing.
eCPM by Format: Typical Market Ranges
Without assigning exact figures to an independent benchmark, the mobile ad market shows a useful pattern. Rewarded video generally has the highest eCPM because advertisers pay more for a completed, voluntary view. A user who chooses a 30-second video for an in-game reward provides a stronger engagement signal than someone who scrolls past a banner. Rewarded demand is especially strong in games and in high-spend markets such as Japan, South Korea, Australia, and the United States.
Interstitials typically sit in the middle. They hold attention for the ad, usually 5 to 30 seconds, and may offer interactive elements. In most categories and geos, their eCPM is roughly 3 to 8 times the banner eCPM per impression. The cost is user friction on every impression, while frequency caps restrict the number you can serve in a session.
Banners have the lowest eCPM, but usually the greatest impression volume because they can remain visible throughout a session. Showing one every 30 to 60 seconds in a 5-minute session creates 5 to 10 impressions, while one interstitial creates one. Whether those banner impressions earn more than a single interstitial depends on the CPM gap and your users' session patterns.
The Metric That Matters: Revenue Per Daily Active User
eCPM helps explain pricing, but ad revenue per daily active user, or ARPDAU from ads, should guide format selection. It captures the combined effect of format, impression volume, user tolerance, and session behavior.
For the same 10,000 DAU: A uses banners only, 8 impressions per session at $0.40 CPM and 2 sessions per user per day. It produces 160,000 impressions and $64. B uses interstitials only, 2 impressions per session at $3.50 CPM and 2 sessions per user per day. It produces 40,000 impressions and $140. C uses 1 interstitial per session and rewarded video at 0.8 engagements per user per session, with $3.50 CPM for interstitials and $9.00 CPM for rewarded, across 2 sessions per day. Revenue is $70 from interstitials plus $144 from rewarded, or $214.
These examples use industry-realistic ranges and are not independently verified benchmarks. The comparison structure is the point: rewarded video in a game with an active economy routinely beats banners and interstitials on ARPDAU when the design creates enough voluntary rewarded moments per session. Without a reason to watch, an app cannot realize rewarded's theoretical eCPM advantage.
When Banners Win Despite Lower eCPM
Banners fit apps whose core loop lacks natural interstitial break points and whose users have no in-app economy that gives rewarded video value. Utility and content apps often fit this pattern. Someone checking a weather app twice daily for 30 seconds creates neither rewarded engagement nor a clean interstitial break. A banner shown during those 60 seconds earns modest revenue without adding friction.
Banners can also complement interstitials and rewarded video. During gameplay, a low-CPM banner fills space between interstitial impressions, monetizing inventory that would otherwise earn nothing. It must not replace a higher-value format. If a game creates 5 rewarded opportunities per session but users engage with only 1.5, the remaining 3.5 are already missed. A banner occupies a separate slot rather than competing for them.
Banners are not merely a fallback. When session structure cannot support interstitials and no in-game economy exists, they may be the main realistic format. The error is adding banners to poorly placed interstitials on the assumption that more formats always increase revenue. An interstitial that reduces session length can lose more rewarded engagement than its own impression is worth.
Reading Your Own Data
The useful comparison is specific to your app and requires enough data to be meaningful. Track impression count by format, eCPM by format, and session behavior, including length, depth, and return rate, segmented by the formats users interacted with.
Look for two signals. First, check whether a format has a negative relationship with session length or return rate. If users exposed to interstitials show statistically shorter sessions or lower day-7 return rates, the placement is likely creating friction. Second, check whether a format contributes little to ARPDAU despite high impression volume. A banner taking persistent screen space while contributing 8% of total ad revenue may need removal or repositioning.
Adrop's format-level analytics separate impressions by ad unit type, making this segmentation practical without custom event logging in your analytics stack. The dashboard already compares revenue per ad unit with impression volume.
These formats are tools, and the right one depends on your session structure, which user segments have an in-game economy that supports rewarded video, and which markets you serve. Direct measurement is the reliable way to choose for your app, rather than defaulting to the format with the highest nominal eCPM.
[/BODY-HTML]