Independent report compares codec royalty costs across two major licensing pools
Streaming services evaluating codec licensing face a difficult question: how do the royalty costs of Access Advance Video Distribution Patent Pool and the Avanci Video program actually compare? A new report from Streaming Learning Center's Jan Ozer answers that question with hard numbers.
The report, sponsored by Access Advance, models royalty calculations for eight streaming service templates based on well-known platforms, including BritBox, Go3, Netflix, Disney, Paramount+, Amazon Prime, YouTube, and Meta. Ozer independently researched all inputs and performed all calculations himself. The full methodology is documented in sufficient detail for readers to verify every figure.
Briefly, the two programs cover similar but not identical ground. Access Advance's Video Distribution Patent pool covers AV1, VP9, HEVC, and VVC. Avanci's video program covers the same four codecs plus MPEG-DASH. The programs also calculate royalties differently. Access Advance computes royalties in three ways, based on users, subscribers, and subscription revenue, with the highest of the three determining what a licensee pays. Avanci charges based on users or revenue (including advertising), with a third fixed royalty category that had not yet been defined as of the report's publication. Under Avanci's structure, the lowest applicable royalty applies.
The headline finding is striking. When current adjustments and discounts are applied, Avanci's royalties run 1.9 times higher than Access Advance's for a Paramount-scale service and 30.3 times higher for a Meta-scale service. In a full royalty computation that strips out promotional incentives, the range runs from 6.5 times higher (Paramount) to 31.9 times higher (Meta).
Several structural factors drive the differential. Avanci's royalty base includes advertising revenue, which Access Advance excludes. Avanci's revenue-based rates are flat, while Access Advance's are tiered, producing dramatically different effective rates at scale. At the highest Access Advance revenue tier, the modeled effective rate falls below 0.17 percent, compared to Avanci's lowest published rate of 1.6 percent. As of the report's publication in March 2026, Avanci had also not announced a fee cap for its video program, while the Access Advance pool is capped at $72,000,000.
The report's timing is notable on several fronts. There is substantial overlap in patent ownership between the two pools, so many potential licensees may choose one pool and then negotiate bilateral licenses with other major patent holders. Comparative licensing costs will be a significant factor in this decision. In addition, multiple ongoing litigations in the codec licensing space may also bring royalty costs and structure into consideration before the courts.
As Ozer notes in the blog announcing the report, price is only one input in a licensing decision. The patents held by each program and the scope of protection afforded by each license are also material considerations that the report does not address.
The full report is available for download at the Streaming Learning Center.