YouTube Shorts vs Long Videos: My 30-Day RPM Test
If you’ve been trying to make money on YouTube, you’ve probably run into the same question over and over:
Should I focus on Shorts, or should I invest more time into long-form videos?
Most articles online give you a clean, simple answer.
Shorts are for growth. Long videos are for revenue.
But honestly, that explanation never felt complete to me.
So instead of repeating the same advice, I decided to test it myself.
For 30 days, I consistently uploaded both Shorts and long-form content on the same channel, targeting the same audience, and tracked everything—from views to RPM to actual revenue performance.
And what I found was way more extreme than I expected.
The Experiment Setup (So You Know This Is Real)
Before we jump into the results, let me quickly walk you through how I structured the test.
I didn’t want random data—I wanted something comparable and useful.
Here’s what I did:
- Duration: 30 days
- Niche: YouTube monetization and creator growth
- Audience: Primarily US, UK, Canada
- Shorts: 2–3 uploads per day
- Long videos: 2–3 uploads per week
- Average long video length: 7–10 minutes
Most importantly, I tried to keep the topics aligned. For example:
- A Short about “RPM myths”
- A long video breaking down RPM in detail
So both formats were feeding into the same content ecosystem.
All RPM and revenue data are based on YouTube Studio analytics over a 30-day period.
The Raw Results (This Is Where It Gets Interesting)
Let’s get straight to the numbers.
Shorts
- Total views: 2,240,000
- Total revenue: $44
- RPM: ~$0.019
Long-Form Videos
- Total views: 138,000
- Total revenue: $496
- RPM: ~$3.59
Now here’s the moment that really changed how I think about content:
One Short reached 480,000 views but generated just $9, while a 7-minute video with 9,200 views generated over $38.
Let that sink in for a second.
Half a million views… barely enough for lunch.
Under 10k views… and it paid significantly more.
This is where most creators start asking the wrong question:
“Why are Shorts so bad at monetization?”
But the better question is:
“What exactly is different in how money flows between these two formats?”
Why Long Videos Earn More (It’s Not Just CPM)
Most people think the answer is simply “higher CPM.”
That’s true—but it’s only part of the story.
1. You Control the Monetization Layer
With long-form videos, you can:
- Place mid-roll ads
- Adjust frequency
- Align ads with viewer engagement
That means your revenue isn’t just dependent on YouTube—it’s partially under your control.
For example, placing an ad right after a key insight or story moment often results in higher completion rates.
That directly impacts revenue.
2. Advertisers Prefer Long Sessions
Long videos create:
- Longer watch time
- Better audience profiling
- More predictable engagement
From an advertiser’s perspective, this is gold.
They can:
- Track behavior
- Optimize targeting
- Deliver higher-value campaigns
That’s why long-form content consistently attracts higher bids.
3. Multi-Layer Monetization Stack
Long videos don’t just rely on ads.
They also benefit from:
- Suggested video traffic
- Session chaining
- External traffic (search, embeds)
And if you choose to, you can stack:
- Affiliate links
- Sponsorships
- Digital products
Shorts don’t offer that depth.
Why Shorts Monetization Feels Broken (But Isn’t)
Shorts aren’t “bad”—they just operate under a completely different system.
1. The Revenue Pool Model
Unlike long videos, Shorts don’t attach ads directly to your content.
Instead:
- Ads play between videos in the feed
- Revenue goes into a shared pool
- Creators get distributed earnings
So even if your video performs well, your revenue depends on:
- Overall platform performance
- Your share of total engagement
That’s a very different dynamic.
2. Weak Targeting (Here’s the Technical Reality)
This is where things get more interesting.
Shorts aren’t just limited by format—they’re limited by how ads are delivered.
Because of rapid scrolling behavior:
- Users don’t stay long enough for deep profiling
- There’s minimal session continuity
- Engagement signals are shallow
More importantly, the format itself prevents:
- Deep tracking layers
- High-precision targeting payloads
- Complex ad delivery systems like advanced VAST execution
In long-form video environments, advertisers can run sophisticated campaigns using technologies like VAST (Video Ad Serving Template), enabling:
- Multi-layer tracking
- Interactive formats
- Sequenced ad delivery
Shorts simply don’t support that level of complexity.
And when advertisers can’t run advanced campaigns, they pay less.
That’s one of the hidden reasons behind low RPM.
3. Ultra-Short Attention Cycles
Shorts viewers behave differently.
They:
- Swipe quickly
- Rarely commit to a session
- Consume content passively
That leads to:
- Fewer ad impressions per user
- Lower engagement depth
- Reduced advertiser confidence
All of which push RPM down.
But Shorts Are Still Incredibly Powerful (Just Not for Revenue)
Here’s what surprised me the most.
Even though Shorts barely made money, they completely changed my channel growth.
During the test:
- I gained over 3,500 subscribers
- Several videos went semi-viral
- My older long videos saw traffic spikes
In one case, a Short drove enough interest that a related long video gained 20k additional views in just a few days.
That’s when it clicked for me.
Shorts are not a monetization tool.
They’re a distribution engine.
The Strategy That Actually Worked (After Testing)
Once I understood this, I stopped treating Shorts and long videos as competitors.
Instead, I built a simple system.
Step 1: Shorts = Attention
Every Short is designed to:
- Hook quickly
- Deliver one clear idea
- Leave the viewer wanting more
Not everything needs to go viral.
It just needs to reach new people.
Step 2: Long Videos = Monetization
Long videos are where I:
- Go deeper
- Build trust
- Capture real watch time
This is where the money actually comes from.
Step 3: Connect the Two
This is the part most creators miss.
You need to actively link Shorts to long videos.
I started doing things like:
- Mentioning full videos in Shorts
- Pinning comments with links
- Using consistent titles and themes
Once I did that, everything improved.
Understanding RPM (Without Overcomplicating It)
A lot of confusion comes from misunderstanding RPM.
Here’s the simple formula:
RPM = (Estimated Earnings / Views) × 1000
So:
- High views + low earnings = low RPM
- Lower views + higher earnings = high RPM
Shorts inflate views.
Long videos multiply value per view.
That’s the real difference.
Mistakes I Made (And See Others Make)
Looking back, I made some obvious mistakes early on.
Mistake 1: Chasing Views Instead of Revenue
I thought:
More views = more money
Reality:
More qualified views = more money
Big difference.
Mistake 2: Ignoring Retention Data
Once I started paying attention to:
- Audience drop-off
- Watch time curves
My long video RPM improved significantly.
Retention = revenue multiplier.
Mistake 3: Treating Shorts as a Business Model
Shorts alone rarely generate meaningful income.
But they’re incredibly effective when used correctly.
What I Would Do If I Started Over Today
If I had to rebuild from scratch in 2026, I’d keep it simple:
- 1–2 Shorts daily (growth layer)
- 2–3 long videos weekly (revenue layer)
- Focus on high-value topics (finance, tech, AI)
- Review analytics weekly
No overthinking. Just consistency and iteration.
The Real Takeaway (After 30 Days of Data)
Here’s the honest conclusion:
Shorts will grow your channel faster than anything else.
But they won’t pay you well.
Long videos grow slower—but they build actual income.
The creators who win aren’t choosing one over the other.
They’re combining both—with intention.
And once you understand how each format fits into the system, everything starts to make sense.
