Seven questions, about two minutes. You will see where your team sits against sportsbooks, platform providers, odds suppliers and prediction markets working across Europe, North America, South America and Africa.
Every operator in this study cut planned product work in the last twelve months because odds and data integrations consumed the roadmap. Find out how you compare.
Count every supplier your team maintains a direct technical relationship with.
Shading shows concentration of responses, not exact counts.
Respondents split almost evenly between lean supplier stacks and double-digit ones. The books running the most providers tend to be the most ambitious ones. Every new sport or market type arrives attached to another supplier, another data format, another set of technical requirements and another support channel.
The pattern is consistent: supplier count rises with product ambition, and so does everything else in this benchmark.
Live streaming and front-end content can be aggregated fairly cleanly. Odds and pricing feeds arrive in a different shape from every supplier, and every shape has to be understood before a single market can be priced.
Your typical case, not your best or your worst.
Shading shows concentration of responses, not exact counts.
Not one respondent completes a new odds or data integration in under a month. The largest group sits at a full quarter or longer for a single supplier, and that clock stops before the feed has delivered a single betting market to a single customer.
You spend six months integrating a new feed because someone else has bought the rights, and the output of that six months of work is no value at all. It's the exact same data. Head of Product, European sportsbook
Planning, building, testing and maintaining, combined.
Shading shows concentration of responses, not exact counts.
The overwhelming majority of respondents give up a tenth or more of total product capacity to odds and data integration work. For a significant group it consumes between a quarter and a half of everything their product organisation can build in a year.
This is capacity that never reaches a customer. It funds no new sports, no new markets, no new bet types and no better in-play experience. All of it goes on keeping your existing suppliers talking to your platform.
Pick the one that consistently costs your team the most.
The most-cited drain is technical mapping and architecture, the work of making a new supplier's event IDs, market IDs, odds formats and update cycles agree with everything you already run. Writing the code comes further down the list.
There is no universal mapping language in this industry. Every supplier you add multiplies the number of translations your team maintains, and every one of those translations is a place where a failure can occur.
In a typical year.
Shading shows concentration of responses, not exact counts.
Almost every respondent reported multiple incidents a year driven by odds and data feeds, and most sit in the heaviest band. For those teams a third-party feed triggers an emergency roughly every other month. That unplanned work lands on the same engineers who were supposed to be building the roadmap.
This is why "we've integrated it" is misleading. Teams pay rent on every integration they have ever built. Respondents were split on whether new integrations or maintaining existing ones consumed more engineering time, which tells you the maintenance burden now rivals the build.
Answer honestly. The results on this question surprised us.
Nearly every respondent is using or trialling AI on integration work, and a substantial group claims active use across even their most complex odds and pricing feeds. Their integration timelines are no shorter. Their incident rates are no lower.
AI helps most with code generation and initial implementation, which was never the bottleneck. Barely anything was reported on mapping, supplier management, feed updates or ongoing maintenance, and that is where the time actually goes.
AI writes the code faster. Twenty fragmented suppliers still speak twenty different languages.
Work you wanted to do and could not.
Shading shows concentration of responses, not exact counts.
Every single respondent cut planned odds and data integration work in the last year. What gets cut is remarkably consistent: new sports and new market types go first, with front-end enhancements close behind.
Engineering hours can be budgeted for. The product you never shipped cannot be recovered, and it is lost in exactly the markets where differentiation decides who wins.
Your profile appears immediately. We'll also email you the full 2026 State of Sportsbook Integrations Report.
Please enter a valid company email address.
Individual responses are never published or attributed. We report aggregate benchmarks only.
Four content categories. One integration, one schema. Every provider, every event mapped to one iGM ID.