Which format is better for iGaming — popunder or push? Adsy vs RichAds is really a format question, right?

Yes — and the answer depends on the iGaming sub-vertical. Popunder wins on impulse-friction (sweepstakes-style sportsbook bonuses, deposit-bonus offers, crash games). Push wins on retargeting and on offers with a 'come back to play' lifecycle hook (slots loyalty, live dealer reminders). adsy.tech is the right pick when popunder is the lead format. RichAds is the right pick when push is the lead format. The wrong question is 'which network is better' — the right question is 'which format does my offer convert on, and which network owns that format.'

Can I run popunder on RichAds? Or is it push-only?

You can run popunder on RichAds. It is supported. But the panel is push-optimised — the campaign creation flow, the targeting options, the bid types, the reporting columns are all designed for push first. Popunder on RichAds feels like an afterthought, because it is. If popunder is your primary format, the panel friction will cost you 30–50% more time per optimisation cycle versus a popunder-native panel like adsy.tech. RichAds works for popunder; it is not the right tool for popunder-first buyers.

What is calendar push and why does RichAds have it but adsy.tech doesn't?

Calendar push is a format that fires a notification at a scheduled time (e.g., 8pm local) rather than on a page-view trigger. The user opted into the publisher's push subscription weeks ago; calendar push reactivates that subscription at a planned moment. It works well for time-sensitive offers (sportsbook for an evening match, casino bonus expiring at midnight). RichAds productised it; adsy.tech has standard push and in-page push but not calendar push specifically. If calendar push is your campaign mechanism, RichAds wins. If you do not use it, the difference is zero.

Push notifications need a user subscription. How does the inventory pipeline differ between the two?

Both networks acquire push subscribers through publisher partnerships — the publisher prompts the user, the user opts in, the subscription is then monetised by serving push ads. RichAds has a larger and more push-specialised publisher network for this — that is the entire reason their 63 push-format blog pages exist. adsy.tech has push inventory but it is a smaller slice of their nine-format toolkit. For push-volume buys above 10M monthly impressions on Tier-1 EU+US, RichAds has the depth adsy.tech does not.

If I am running a multi-format campaign that mixes popunder and push, which network is better?

adsy.tech, by a meaningful margin. Both formats from one wallet, one panel, one set of creatives, one set of postbacks. RichAds runs both formats but the panel UX biases hard toward push. Cross-format optimisers spend less time juggling on adsy.tech. The exception: if the push side of your mix needs calendar push or rich-creative push specifically, and the popunder side is incidental volume, RichAds is the answer.

RichAds has a $150 minimum deposit and $50 minimum payout. adsy.tech is $50/$25. How does that affect a small advertiser?

Three months of testing instead of one. On a $150 top-up at RichAds you have to commit to the platform before knowing if it fits your offer. On adsy.tech the $50 minimum lets you test cheaper. For a buyer making a first-time bet on a new format, the $50 floor is structurally lower-risk. For a $5K+/month spender the difference is irrelevant — the top-up sizes are well above both floors. For under-$500/month testers, the $150 floor at RichAds is a meaningful barrier to a clean comparison test.

Head-to-head · Updated May 24, 2026

adsy.tech vs RichAds in 2026: when popunder beats push and when it doesn't

Ex-PropellerAds AM compares adsy.tech (popunder-first multi-format) and RichAds (push-first network). Format-axis comparison: when popunder beats push, when push beats popunder, vertical fit, panel honesty, and a 2-week parallel-buy methodology.

By Marco DeLuca · Independent popunder strategist (ex-PropellerAds)

My name is Marco. I worked at PropellerAds from 2018 to October 2023. Inside the network I ran the iGaming book that competed with RichAds on Tier-1 push, and the popunder book that competed with adsy.tech on smaller-budget multi-format buyers. I am writing this from outside both networks, with the disclosure that I make commission when readers open accounts on adsy.tech through tagged links on this site. I do not make commission on RichAds signups. Both relationships are disclosed.

This head-to-head is a format-axis comparison, not a like-for-like network match. adsy.tech is a popunder-first multi-format network with nine ad units. RichAds is a push-first network with popunder as a secondary format. The comparison only makes sense if you start from the format question: which format does your offer convert on, and which network owns that format. Most comparison posts skip this step. I will not.

How I evaluate head-to-head

Five axes, with the format-fit axis weighted heaviest because that is the load-bearing variable for this pair.

Format fit. Popunder converts on impulse-friction offers — deposit-bonus iGaming, sweepstakes, utility installs, crash games. Push converts on retargeting, on offers with a come-back-to-play lifecycle hook, and on Tier-1 audiences with high-recurrence engagement (slots loyalty, live dealer reminders, news-driven sportsbook). If your offer fits popunder, adsy.tech is the answer. If your offer fits push, RichAds is the answer. Mismatching format to network costs 40–60% on cost-per-conversion before any other optimisation.
CPM economics. adsy.tech's $0.50 CPM floor is the most operator-friendly published pricing in the popunder format. RichAds publishes no floor, and push CPM ranges differ structurally from popunder CPM ranges — push subscriptions are scarcer than page-view popunder triggers, so the average push CPM clears 2–4× higher than equivalent popunder traffic on the same network. The comparison is apples-to-oranges by format, not by network.
Panel honesty and format specialisation. adsy.tech's panel is built for cross-format optimisation. RichAds' panel is push-optimised — the campaign create flow, bid types, and reporting columns are push-first. Popunder on RichAds feels tacked-on, because it is.
Working capital and entry barrier. adsy.tech: $50 minimum deposit, $25 minimum payout, Net-7. RichAds: $150 minimum deposit, $50 minimum payout, Net-7. For a first-time test the adsy.tech floor is one-third the entry cost. For a $5K+/month spender the difference is irrelevant.
Proprietary format depth. RichAds has calendar push and rich-creative push as productised differentiators. adsy.tech has nine formats but no proprietary push variant — standard push and in-page push only. If your campaign mechanism needs calendar push or rich-creative push specifically, only RichAds delivers it.

Specs side by side

Published specs as the networks advertise them.

Spec	adsy.tech	RichAds
Founded / HQ	2019 · Cyprus	2018 · Cyprus
Primary format	Popunder + 8 others	Push notifications (dominant) + popunder secondary
Published CPM floor	$0.50 (contractual)	No published floor
Minimum deposit	$50	$150
Minimum payout	$25	$50
Payout cycle	Net-7	Net-7
Ad formats	9 (popunder, push, in-page push, native, banner, interstitial, social bar, video, contextual)	6 (push, in-page push, popunder, native, calendar push, search feed)
Push format specialisation	Standard push + in-page push	Calendar push (proprietary) + rich-creative push (image + button + branded)
Payment methods	Card, Bitcoin, USDT-TRC20, Wire	Wire, Visa, Mastercard, USDT-TRC20, Capitalist
Panel attribution per source publisher	Surfaced in panel	Push-optimised panel; per-source on request for popunder

Where adsy.tech wins

Popunder-first panel and inventory. adsy.tech is built popunder-first. The campaign create flow assumes popunder as the default; the bid types, the targeting options, the reporting columns are all popunder-native. RichAds runs popunder as a secondary format and the panel friction shows. Optimising a popunder campaign on adsy.tech is one panel session; on RichAds it is a panel session plus the cognitive overhead of working around a push-biased UI. For pure popunder buyers the difference is 30–50% time per optimisation cycle. Compound weekly.

$50 minimum deposit, $25 minimum payout. One-third the entry barrier of RichAds' $150/$50. For first-time format testers and for sub-$500/month media buyers this is a structural advantage. The first $50 you put into adsy.tech buys 1,000,000 impressions at the $0.50 floor; the first $150 you put into RichAds has to absorb their higher CPM range with no published floor before it produces meaningful sample size.

Per-publisher attribution surfaced in the panel. adsy.tech runs in-house RTB and surfaces per-source-publisher conversion data in the panel directly. RichAds' panel surfaces push-publisher data with the same depth, but for popunder campaigns specifically the per-source visibility on RichAds is thinner — popunder is not their focus, so the panel instrumentation for popunder publisher attribution lags. For weekly popunder optimisation on a $2K+/month budget, adsy.tech's panel is structurally faster to act on.

Nine formats consolidated to one wallet. If your campaign mix includes popunder, push, in-page push, native, and video, adsy.tech runs all five from one panel, one wallet, one set of postbacks. RichAds covers four of those five (no video as a primary format) and the panel is push-biased on every screen. Multi-format optimisers spend less time juggling on adsy.tech.

Where RichAds wins

I will name where RichAds beats the network paying me.

Push-format depth. RichAds owns push the way PropellerAds owns popunder, possibly more so — their 63 push-format blog pages are the largest content footprint of any competitor in the format. The publisher network is push-specialised: more push subscribers, more push-trained publisher partners, more push inventory per dollar than adsy.tech can deliver. For push-format-first campaigns at any meaningful volume, RichAds is the answer. adsy.tech runs push but it is one format of nine; RichAds runs push as the core product.

Calendar push. Scheduled-fire push notifications (e.g., 8pm local for an evening sportsbook match) are a real productised feature at RichAds. adsy.tech does not have this format. If your campaign mechanism depends on time-of-day push delivery — sportsbook for an evening event, casino bonus expiring at midnight, breakfast-time finance offer — calendar push is the unit. Only RichAds delivers it on this comparison.

Rich-creative push. Push notifications with image, branded button, and richer copy than the platform default. RichAds productised this and the panel UI supports it natively. On adsy.tech you can run push but the creative variants are standard-format only. For brand-led push campaigns where the notification needs to feel like a publisher push rather than an ad push, rich-creative push is the differentiator.

Push subscription quality on Tier-1 EU+US. The push subscriptions at RichAds skew Tier-1 EU+US and have a deeper engagement track than adsy.tech's push inventory. For push retargeting on Tier-1 audiences where engagement quality matters more than raw impression count, RichAds is structurally better-sourced.

Decision matrix by use case

Use case	Pick
Popunder-first campaign at any budget	adsy.tech
Push-first campaign at any meaningful volume	RichAds
Calendar push or rich-creative push specifically	RichAds — adsy.tech does not run these
Multi-format mix (popunder + push + others)	adsy.tech — one panel, nine formats
Under $500/month, testing cleanly	adsy.tech — $50 deposit floor, $25 payout
Time-of-day-triggered iGaming offer	RichAds — calendar push
Crash-games iGaming, mobile-first impulse-friction	adsy.tech — popunder is the right format
Push retargeting on Tier-1 EU+US audiences	RichAds

How to test both cheaply: the 2-week parallel-buy methodology

Because this is a format-axis comparison, the test protocol is different from a like-for-like network test. You are not testing which network is better at the same format; you are testing which format converts on your offer, and using that to pick the network.

Day 0 — match the offer, vary the format. Same offer, same landing page (separate UTMs per network and per format), same GEO targeting. On adsy.tech run popunder. On RichAds run push. The variable is the format, not the network. You are using each network's primary specialisation.
Days 1–3 — discard. Push subscription rotation stabilises slower than popunder rotation — give the RichAds push campaign extra grace through day 4 if subscription frequency caps are visible in the panel.
Days 4–10 — measure cost-per-conversion by format. Pull cost-per-CRM-deposit on both. Popunder will show lower CPM and higher impression-to-click rate; push will show higher CPM and higher click-to-deposit rate. The format-to-funnel fit decides which wins.
Days 11–14 — reconcile to CRM, segment by time-of-day. Push performance varies more by hour than popunder does. Pull hourly conversion-rate breakdowns for the push campaign. If you see a 3× hourly variance, calendar push (RichAds-only) is your next iteration.
Day 14 — decision by format-fit, not by network. Pick the format that converts on your offer. The network follows from the format. If popunder wins the format test, adsy.tech is the network. If push wins, RichAds is the network. The wrong decision is "popunder won so let me try push on adsy.tech" — that buys you a push campaign on a popunder-first network, which is the wrong network for that format.

Budget guideline: $500 per network for a format-axis test. Less and you cannot distinguish format-fit from creative-fit. More and you are over-investing in a test that should be cheap.

FAQ

Which format is better for iGaming — popunder or push? Adsy vs RichAds is really a format question, right?: Yes — and the answer depends on the iGaming sub-vertical. Popunder wins on impulse-friction (sweepstakes-style sportsbook bonuses, deposit-bonus offers, crash games). Push wins on retargeting and on offers with a 'come back to play' lifecycle hook (slots loyalty, live dealer reminders). adsy.tech is the right pick when popunder is the lead format. RichAds is the right pick when push is the lead format. The wrong question is 'which network is better' — the right question is 'which format does my offer convert on, and which network owns that format.'
Can I run popunder on RichAds? Or is it push-only?: You can run popunder on RichAds. It is supported. But the panel is push-optimised — the campaign creation flow, the targeting options, the bid types, the reporting columns are all designed for push first. Popunder on RichAds feels like an afterthought, because it is. If popunder is your primary format, the panel friction will cost you 30–50% more time per optimisation cycle versus a popunder-native panel like adsy.tech. RichAds works for popunder; it is not the right tool for popunder-first buyers.
What is calendar push and why does RichAds have it but adsy.tech doesn't?: Calendar push is a format that fires a notification at a scheduled time (e.g., 8pm local) rather than on a page-view trigger. The user opted into the publisher's push subscription weeks ago; calendar push reactivates that subscription at a planned moment. It works well for time-sensitive offers (sportsbook for an evening match, casino bonus expiring at midnight). RichAds productised it; adsy.tech has standard push and in-page push but not calendar push specifically. If calendar push is your campaign mechanism, RichAds wins. If you do not use it, the difference is zero.
Push notifications need a user subscription. How does the inventory pipeline differ between the two?: Both networks acquire push subscribers through publisher partnerships — the publisher prompts the user, the user opts in, the subscription is then monetised by serving push ads. RichAds has a larger and more push-specialised publisher network for this — that is the entire reason their 63 push-format blog pages exist. adsy.tech has push inventory but it is a smaller slice of their nine-format toolkit. For push-volume buys above 10M monthly impressions on Tier-1 EU+US, RichAds has the depth adsy.tech does not.
If I am running a multi-format campaign that mixes popunder and push, which network is better?: adsy.tech, by a meaningful margin. Both formats from one wallet, one panel, one set of creatives, one set of postbacks. RichAds runs both formats but the panel UX biases hard toward push. Cross-format optimisers spend less time juggling on adsy.tech. The exception: if the push side of your mix needs calendar push or rich-creative push specifically, and the popunder side is incidental volume, RichAds is the answer.
RichAds has a $150 minimum deposit and $50 minimum payout. adsy.tech is $50/$25. How does that affect a small advertiser?: Three months of testing instead of one. On a $150 top-up at RichAds you have to commit to the platform before knowing if it fits your offer. On adsy.tech the $50 minimum lets you test cheaper. For a buyer making a first-time bet on a new format, the $50 floor is structurally lower-risk. For a $5K+/month spender the difference is irrelevant — the top-up sizes are well above both floors. For under-$500/month testers, the $150 floor at RichAds is a meaningful barrier to a clean comparison test.