The short answer
Long-form videos and Shorts can both generate YouTube revenue, but the systems differ. Watch Page videos participate in the Watch Page monetization model. Shorts Feed ad revenue is pooled and allocated through YouTube’s Shorts model before the creator share is applied.
Because the mechanics and viewing behavior differ, creators should compare the formats with separate RPM assumptions rather than one universal “pay per view” number.
How the revenue models differ
| Area | Long-form / Watch Page | YouTube Shorts |
|---|---|---|
| Primary ad context | Ads shown on the Watch Page around eligible videos. | Ads shown between videos in the Shorts Feed. |
| Revenue allocation | YouTube states partners receive 55% of net Watch Page ad revenue. | YouTube allocates eligible Shorts revenue through the Creator Pool; monetizing creators keep 45% of the amount allocated to them. |
| Planning input | Use long-form RPM from comparable Analytics data. | Use Shorts RPM from comparable Analytics data. |
The percentages above are policy context. Do not multiply them into an RPM estimate again: creator RPM is already a creator-side revenue metric.
Illustrative view comparison
This table uses Earnquo’s built-in illustrative typical planning presets: €4.50 RPM for long-form and €0.06 RPM for Shorts. They are not official YouTube rates and should be replaced with your own Analytics RPM when available.
| Views | Long-form at €4.50 RPM | Shorts at €0.06 RPM |
|---|---|---|
| 10,000 | €45 | €0.6 |
| 100,000 | €450 | €6 |
| 1,000,000 | €4,500 | €60 |
The point is not that these exact numbers will happen. It is that using a long-form assumption for Shorts can create a wildly unrealistic forecast.
Why Shorts RPM can look much lower
A Shorts view is not monetized through the same ad placement model as a normal Watch Page view. Shorts users scroll through a feed, ad revenue is pooled, music licensing can affect the pool, and eligible creator revenue is allocated under the Shorts rules.
That is why a creator can receive very large Shorts view counts without those views producing the same revenue per 1,000 as long-form videos.
Does that make Shorts worse?
Not necessarily. Revenue per 1,000 views is only one business metric. Shorts can serve discovery, audience growth, content testing and funneling viewers toward longer videos or other monetization. Long-form content can support deeper engagement and a different advertising opportunity.
The practical comparison is not “which format always pays more?” but “what role does each format play in this channel, and what revenue does each format actually produce?”
A better way to plan a mixed channel
- Separate Shorts views from long-form views.
- Record the actual RPM for each format over a comparable period.
- Forecast each format independently.
- Add the two revenue estimates only after they have been calculated with their own assumptions.
- Track whether Shorts are also contributing indirectly to long-form audience growth.
The Earnquo YouTube Money Calculator has separate Long-form and Shorts modes so the assumptions do not get mixed accidentally.
Common comparison mistakes
- Comparing one viral Short with a channel’s long-term long-form average.
- Applying a long-form RPM to Shorts view forecasts.
- Treating illustrative internet RPM ranges as guaranteed channel economics.
- Ignoring audience location, topic, seasonality and monetization eligibility.
- Comparing revenue without considering the strategic value of audience growth or conversion into longer content.
Official YouTube sources
YouTube partner earnings overview ↗
YouTube Shorts monetization policy ↗
Last reviewed: October 14, 2026. Earnquo is not affiliated with YouTube or Google. The example RPM values are transparent planning scenarios, not claims about what a specific channel will earn.