White Label Lottery Software Pricing: Minimums, Revenue Share & 3-Year TCO
Compare lottery software proposals using contract-defined fee bases, minimum versus additional-fee formulas and a 36-month TCO model with owned integration, migration and launch assumptions.
White-label lottery software pricing should be compared on a defined scope and a common set of operating assumptions. A setup fee or revenue-share percentage alone does not show what the operator will pay, which costs sit elsewhere or how the agreement behaves when activity is lower than expected. A useful comparison combines implementation, recurring fees, variable charges, third-party services, internal operation and change or exit costs.
This guide explains a three-year total cost of ownership (TCO) method and the distinction between a minimum fee and an additional fixed fee. It does not publish WhiteLotto rates. Actual pricing requires a scoped commercial proposal, and every formula must follow that proposal’s fee definitions.
Calculate your 3-year platform TCO
Enter costs and fee rules from your proposal. TCO is total cost of ownership, not revenue or profit. All values stay in this browser; nothing is submitted.
Use the fee base defined in the contract: sales, GGR and NGR are not interchangeable. Enter 0 only for a known zero cost. Fixed and minimum fields apply only to the selected model.
Enter your assumptions and calculate.
36-month TCO:
36-month platform fees:
Month 1 platform fee:
| Year | Cost |
|---|---|
| 1 | |
| 2 | |
| 3 |
Nominal cost model, without discounting. The fee base changes monthly; fixed, minimum, third-party and internal costs stay constant. Setup and integrations are in year 1; change and exit provisions are in year 3. No currency conversion. Taxes and other costs are included only if you enter them. Wallet balances, deposits and prize reserves are not automatically counted as expenses. This is not a WhiteLotto quote or a cash-flow forecast.
Define the fee base before comparing percentages
Ask what a percentage applies to: ticket sales, gross gaming revenue, net gaming revenue, deposits or another contract-defined base. Those labels are not interchangeable. Identify the treatment of prizes or fulfilment, refunds, cancellations, incentives, payment costs and other deductions.
For modelling, call the monthly fee base B and the revenue-share rate s. The share component is s × B. Record the reporting source, calculation period, adjustments and reconciliation process alongside the formula. A lower percentage on a broader base can cost more than a higher percentage on a narrower one.
Distinguish four commercial structures
| Structure | Monthly platform-fee model | Question to confirm |
|---|---|---|
| Fixed recurring fee | F | What scope, volume and services does F include? |
| Share without a minimum | s × B | Are there separate recurring or usage charges? |
| Minimum credited against share | max(M, s × B) | Is M a floor for the same fee and the same period? |
| Fixed fee plus share | F + (s × B) | Does F remain payable in addition to the full share? |
Here, F means an additional fixed recurring fee and M means a minimum floor credited against the share. The table describes possible structures, not offers available from WhiteLotto. Usage fees, taxes and other components must be modelled separately where applicable.
Compare per-ticket pricing on the same cost boundary
A per-ticket charge is another commercial structure to model alongside a fixed fee or revenue share. Start by defining the billable unit: ticket, line, entry, transaction or completed settlement. One customer purchase can contain several lines and draws, so a price per transaction is not automatically comparable with a price per ticket.
| Input | Question for the proposal | Treatment in the comparison |
|---|---|---|
| Billable volume N | Which accepted units count? How are cancelled, refunded or rejected units treated? | Calculate N from the agreed definition, not from customer count. |
| Unit fee p | Are there volume tiers, different game rates or a committed minimum? | Model the actual tariff; a flat p × N is only the simple case. |
| Other charges | Are setup, support, integrations and payment services additional? | Keep the same inclusions and exclusions for every supplier. |
A worked fee example, not a market price
For an illustrative flat tariff of 0.02 currency units and 100,000 billable units in one month, the usage component is 2,000 currency units. This is arithmetic using invented inputs, not a WhiteLotto quote or a market benchmark. Add any separately payable fees according to the proposal; do not add a minimum twice if it is credited against the same usage charge.
Keep the same monthly volume scenarios when comparing suppliers, then inspect how different fee rules behave. Record changes in ticket mix, multi-draw purchases, refunds and capacity. The existing calculator remains a fixed/share/minimum model: it does not automatically calculate a per-ticket tariff. Model that component separately and keep the current formulas unchanged.
Connect this comparison with White Label versus Turnkey responsibilities, the provider evaluation checklist. CONTACT.
Model minimum versus share without double-counting
When a monthly minimum is credited against the share, the top-up is max(0, M − s × B). The fee is the calculated share plus that top-up: max(M, s × B). Adding M to the full share would overstate this particular structure.
For a positive share rate, the fee crosses the floor when B = M ÷ s. Below that base, the minimum determines the fee; above it, the share does. This is a fee threshold, not the operator’s break-even point. The latter also depends on product, acquisition, payment, staffing and other operating costs.
Confirm the settlement period and credit treatment. Monthly floors, annual commitments, prepayments and fixed-plus-share arrangements can behave differently. If the wording is unclear, request a worked calculation using your assumptions and have the responsible commercial and finance owners reconcile it to the proposal.
Use one cost taxonomy for every supplier
| Category | Items to identify | Evidence to request |
|---|---|---|
| Setup | Discovery, agreed configuration, content work, environments and training | Deliverables, exclusions and payment milestones |
| Integrations | Required interfaces, partner coordination and acceptance work | Scope, responsibilities and estimate basis |
| Recurring and variable | Platform fees, share, minimums, usage and capacity tiers | Formula, included limits and overage treatment |
| Third parties | Required payment, verification, messaging, game or data services | Which party contracts and pays for each service |
| Internal operation | Product, finance, support, control and supplier-management work | Staffing assumptions and retained responsibilities |
| Change and exit | New scope, additional environments, exports and transition work | Change-pricing method and agreed exit scope |
These are questions to investigate, not a claim that any listed service is included or supported. If one proposal transfers work to the operator, include that work when comparing it with a proposal that prices the same responsibility.
For integration costs, use the lottery API integration requirements guide to specify operations, data boundaries, failure handling, partner coordination and acceptance evidence. A list of provider names is not enough to establish the implementation effort or future change responsibility.
For an existing operation, use the lottery platform migration guide to identify mapping, delta capture, wallet reconciliation, support overlap and retained-history work. Put each responsibility into the scoped proposal or the operator budget; do not assume transition work is included in setup.
Calculate three-year TCO month by month
Define which platform and programme costs the workbook includes. Avoid mixing a narrow software quote with a wider operating budget without showing the difference.
Three-year TCO = setup and implementation + integration costs + sum of 36 monthly operating costs + expected change costs + exit or transition provision.
For each month, calculate the applicable platform-fee structure, additional usage charges, third-party costs and included internal operating costs. Reflect the ramp, dependency dates and contractual commitments. Record currency, tax inputs supplied by the appropriate advisers, payment timing and any price adjustments specified in the proposal.
Use a transparent range for unresolved costs rather than entering zero. Assign an owner and a validation step. Do not count a charge both in an implementation package and as a separate line item unless the proposal makes them separate obligations.
Compare downside, planning and upside scenarios
| Input | Downside | Planning | Upside |
|---|---|---|---|
| Launch and ramp | Later or slower | Current approved assumptions | Earlier or stronger, with dependencies included |
| Contract-defined base B | Lower activity | Evidence-supported planning input | Higher activity |
| Usage and unit costs | More costly mix or exceptions | Expected service mix | Volume effects justified by the proposal |
| Change demand | Additional work | Planned scope | Expansion and capacity requirements |
| Result to inspect | Minimum exposure and cash need | TCO and unresolved assumptions | Marginal fee and capacity costs |
Keep the fee rules constant when comparing operating scenarios, then compare alternative supplier rules on the same inputs. This separates the effect of activity assumptions from the effect of the commercial structure.
Use the 21-day launch readiness guide to distinguish a scoped software-delivery target from permission to open the operation. Model unresolved licensing, banking or payment dependencies as timing assumptions, and confirm which fees remain payable if technical delivery precedes the commercial launch.
Separate cost from the cash funding requirement
TCO does not show every cash movement. Prepayments, refundable deposits, settlement balances or agreed reserves may tie up cash without being the same as an expense. Label each item, its purpose, release assumption and possible loss exposure. Build a monthly cash view alongside the cost view rather than adding every funding movement to TCO.
The downside case should show what remains payable when activity is low or a dependency delays launch. Confirm when recurring charges begin and whether scope changes affect payment milestones. Those details can matter more to cash planning than an attractive headline percentage.
Normalise the proposal before making the decision
Give suppliers a common scope and assumptions sheet. Use the lottery platform provider brief and RFP checklist to make required journeys, dependencies and acceptance evidence comparable.
- Confirm fee bases, floor versus additional-fee treatment and settlement periods.
- List inclusions, excluded work, limits, optional scope and third-party charges.
- Include retained operator responsibilities in the comparison.
- Record term, adjustments, renewal assumptions and change or exit costs.
- Reconcile the formula to a worked supplier calculation.
- Keep unknowns visible and assess capability evidence alongside TCO.
For an established operator, connect the cost model to the business case for adding a lottery vertical. A lower platform cost alone does not establish incremental commercial value.
Download the operator decision workbook
The WhiteLotto Operator Decision Pack includes an evidence-based RFP checklist, a 36-month platform TCO model and an incremental-contribution worksheet for an existing operator adding lottery. Financial inputs start blank so you can use your own scope, proposal terms and assumptions. The workbook does not contain WhiteLotto prices or forecast returns.
Download the WhiteLotto Operator Decision Pack (XLSX)
Use the workbook to identify questions for your platform-scoping conversation. Do not include player records, identity documents or other sensitive data in a contact request.
Pricing questions to resolve with WhiteLotto
Can a reliable price be quoted before scope is defined?
An indicative structure may help discovery, but a comparable proposal needs products, markets, responsibilities, integrations, volume assumptions and service expectations.
Is a minimum fee better than pure revenue share?
No structure is universally better. Compare floor exposure, the definition of the share base and the full cost under the same scenarios.
What should the operator bring to the conversation?
Prepare the required scope, operating boundaries, three volume scenarios, target sequence and unresolved dependencies. WhiteLotto can then discuss the information needed for a scoped proposal. Legal and tax inputs should come from appropriately qualified advisers.