Which streaming platforms offer the highest average payout per stream in 2025?
Executive summary
In 2025, niche and smaller services report the highest average payouts per stream: Napster is cited around $0.019–$0.021 per stream [1] [2], and TIDAL commonly appears near $0.0125–$0.01284 per stream [3] [4] [5]. Major platforms like Apple Music are usually reported near $0.007–$0.01 per stream and Spotify much lower at roughly $0.003–$0.005 per stream [3] [5] [6].
1. Big picture: small services pay more per play, big services pay in volume
Multiple 2025 summaries show a consistent pattern: smaller, premium or niche services (Napster, TIDAL, Qobuz, Peloton in some analyses) report the highest per‑stream averages, while mass‑market platforms (Spotify, YouTube/YouTube Music, Amazon) pay less per play but offer vastly larger audiences and discovery potential [1] [3] [7] [5]. That trade‑off — higher rate but fewer listeners vs. lower rate and huge reach — underpins strategic choices for artists [8] [9].
2. Who tops the list in 2025: Napster, TIDAL, Qobuz and surprising contenders
Industry roundups list Napster among the highest, with figures of about $0.019–$0.021 per stream [1] [2]. TIDAL consistently shows one of the highest reported averages around $0.0125–$0.01284 per stream [3] [4] [5]. Qobuz is cited in some niche reporting with estimates up to $0.0136 and even occasional claims near $0.022 in 2025 — though those higher numbers appear in trade pieces focused on audiophile platforms and are described as variable [10]. MusicRadar highlights an unexpected high‑payer: Peloton appears in a creator’s dataset as a top per‑stream payer, illustrating how non‑traditional platforms can outpace mainstream DSPs in certain samples [7].
3. Major platforms: Apple Music, Spotify, YouTube Music, Deezer and Amazon
Apple Music is repeatedly described as one of the better paying major services, commonly cited around $0.007–$0.01 per stream [3] [4] [5]. Spotify’s widely quoted average remains low — roughly $0.003–$0.005 per stream — and some 2025 coverage notes policy changes influencing micro‑payments, such as minimum play thresholds and other eligibility rules [3] [6]. YouTube Music’s sampled data shows a weighted average near $0.0071 in one analysis, but with a very wide distribution [5]. Deezer’s range is given as roughly $0.0011 up to $0.0064 depending on territory and account type [11]. Aggregated reports also place Amazon and Pandora toward the lower end, but exact 2025 averages vary by report [10] [12] [9].
4. Why these headline numbers don’t tell the whole story
All sources warn per‑stream “averages” are blunt instruments: payouts vary by territory, subscription tier, ad vs premium streams, the platform’s revenue pool model, and the artist’s contractual splits with labels/distributors [4] [9] [11]. Several pieces explicitly say per‑stream figures are estimates or samples and that actual artist receipts depend on share of platform revenue and agreements — so a reported $0.01 per stream does not equal cash in every artist’s pocket at that rate [4] [9].
5. Conflicting data and editorial caveats: different studies, different samples
Reports disagree on exact rankings and amounts: some outlets list Napster highest [1] [2], others elevate TIDAL [3] [4], and some spot anomalies like Peloton in a creator’s dataset [7]. Qobuz appears as a high payer in niche coverage but with sparse, fluctuating data points [10]. These differences reflect methodology (small samples, creator‑specific earnings, territory mixes), not a unified industry disclosure [7] [10] [9].
6. Reporting implications for artists and readers
If your priority is per‑stream dollar value, target Napster, TIDAL or niche audiophile services where reported averages are highest, but expect far fewer listeners there [1] [3] [10]. If you prioritise reach, Spotify and YouTube remain essential despite lower per‑stream rates because scale can produce larger absolute revenue [3] [5]. Multiple sources urge a hybrid approach: distribute broadly while seeking higher‑paying pockets and diversifying income beyond streams [8] [9].
Limitations: available sources use sampled or aggregated estimates rather than platform‑published, audited spreadsheets; figures vary by report and methodology, and negotiations/label deals change artist take‑home amounts — these constraints are explicit in the cited reporting [4] [9] [11].