JuicySearch Publishes Fluffy Facts to Woo Journalists
Cartoon: a grinning salesman pours search icons into a funnel labelled FACTS*, and stacks of dollars come out the bottom to eager reporters with notebooks

JuicySearch's new "OnlyFans Statistics 2026" puts a spending figure on 196 countries, 51 US states and 351 cities. It looks impressive... until you scratch even a tiny amount below the surface.

1spending figure in the whole report taken from the OnlyFans accounts
600+local "spending" numbers JuicySearch worked out for itself
−29%change in OnlyFans searches across the world
+8.7%change in real spending, same year

JuicySearch has a research arm called JuicyInsights. In October it updated its "OnlyFans Statistics 2026" report: an interactive map, a free dataset on Zenodo and Kaggle, and an open invitation for journalists to ask for "custom cuts".

Bottom line? None of the country, state or city figures can be relied on. They are one big extrapolation. JuicySearch takes the three regional revenue numbers in OnlyFans' accounts, turns them into spending, and then shares that spending out by search volume.

What is real and what isn't

Let me be fair about the part that holds up. OnlyFans (Fenix International) files audited accounts at Companies House. For the year to November 2025 they report one figure for fan spending: $7.8 billion in gross payments, worldwide. That number is real.

The accounts do not split fan spending by country, or even by region. What they split is OnlyFans' own revenue, its cut of those payments, into three markets: the USA ($965 million), the UK and Europe ($347 million) and the rest of the world ($241 million).

JuicySearch's dataset lists regional fan spending marked as "audited": the USA $4.87 billion, the UK and Europe $1.75 billion, everywhere else $1.22 billion. Those figures are not in the accounts. They are the worldwide $7.84 billion multiplied by each region's share of OnlyFans' revenue, and they match that sum to the dollar. A sensible guess, maybe, but it is their calculation and not OnlyFans' figure.

Everything below the regions is JuicyInsights' own estimate too. The page itself says the country, state and city figures are "estimates built on top of those totals". The Bosnian news site N1, one of the few outlets that asked how the numbers were made, put it plainly: JuicySearch "distributes that amount across countries and cities according to how much OnlyFans content is searched from each place".

Not one of those steps measures what anybody actually spent.

Why searches tell you nothing about spending

This is the silly part. A search for OnlyFans in India does not lead to the same spending as a search in the USA. People in different countries have very different amounts of money, very different access to card payments, and very different reasons for searching. Plenty of searches come from people who are curious, people who want free leaks, and creators looking up their own pages. None of that is spending.

The underpinning idea, that search volume is a fair stand-in for money spent, is so wrong as an indicator that the whole report should be disregarded. And you don't have to take my word for it. JuicySearch's own data says so.

Their own numbers give it away

I downloaded the dataset and checked it. Three things stand out.

1. Searches went down, spending went up. JuicySearch's headline facts say worldwide searches for OnlyFans fell 29% in the year while worldwide spending, the one figure that really is audited, rose 8.7%. Their own page even warns that "a falling number means people search less, not necessarily that they spend less." If searches and spending can move in opposite directions across the whole world, they are not a measure of each other.

2. The country "growth" figures are the pot, not the country. In their table, searches fell in 171 countries. In 143 of those, the "spending" figure still went up.

Searches fell. Their "spending" went up anyway.

Change over the year in OnlyFans searches and in JuicyInsights' spending figure, FY2025

−40% −20% 0 +20% World World: searches −29.2% −29.2% World: "spending" +8.7% +8.7% India India: searches −42.7% −42.7% India: "spending" +25.3% +25.3% UK UK: searches −34.7% −34.7% UK: "spending" +11.6% +11.6% Croatia Croatia: searches −26.2% −26.2% Croatia: "spending" +25.5% +25.5% Finland Finland: searches −20.2% −20.2% Finland: "spending" +26.0% +26.0% Serbia Serbia: searches −19.7% −19.7% Serbia: "spending" +13.8% +13.8% Bosnia Bosnia: searches −14.0% −14.0% Bosnia: "spending" +23.9% +23.9%
  • Searches
  • JuicyInsights "spending"
Source: JuicyInsights countries.csv (search_trend_12m_pct, spend_growth_fy2025_pct) and README. World spending is the audited total; the country figures are theirs.

Nobody measured more money leaving those countries. The regional pot grew, and each country kept roughly the same slice of the falling searches, so each country "grew" with the pot.

3. The city figures are search share with a dollar sign on it. For 168 of the 351 cities, a city's share of its country's spending matches its share of the country's searches to within 0.15 of a percentage point. The other cities sit close to the same line.

Every city sits on the same line

351 cities: share of their country's searches against share of their country's "spending" (log scale). The dashed line is where the two shares are equal. If spending were measured, the dots would scatter. They don't.

0.1% 0.1% 1% 1% 10% 10% 100% 100% dashed: spending share = search share Tirana, Albania: 73.1% of the searches, 67.1% of the "spending" Algiers, Algeria: 18.5% of the searches, 15.85% of the "spending" Buenos Aires, Argentina: 17% of the searches, 15.75% of the "spending" Cordoba, Argentina: 5% of the searches, 4.7% of the "spending" Mendoza, Argentina: 0.4% of the searches, 0.44% of the "spending" Rosario, Argentina: 3.1% of the searches, 3.17% of the "spending" Yerevan, Armenia: 78.2% of the searches, 79.98% of the "spending" Adelaide, Australia: 5.6% of the searches, 5.65% of the "spending" Brisbane, Australia: 14.7% of the searches, 15.3% of the "spending" Canberra, Australia: 0.9% of the searches, 0.95% of the "spending" Gold Coast, Australia: 2.5% of the searches, 2.3% of the "spending" Melbourne, Australia: 18.5% of the searches, 18.63% of the "spending" Perth, Australia: 8.7% of the searches, 8.57% of the "spending" Sydney, Australia: 21.6% of the searches, 22.48% of the "spending" Graz, Austria: 11.1% of the searches, 10.72% of the "spending" Linz, Austria: 3% of the searches, 2.8% of the "spending" Salzburg, Austria: 0.9% of the searches, 0.88% of the "spending" Vienna, Austria: 39.8% of the searches, 38.86% of the "spending" Baku, Azerbaijan: 70.2% of the searches, 71.13% of the "spending" Sumgait, Azerbaijan: 8.9% of the searches, 8.38% of the "spending" Antwerp, Belgium: 13.8% of the searches, 12.92% of the "spending" Brussels, Belgium: 12.8% of the searches, 9.67% of the "spending" Charleroi, Belgium: 2.4% of the searches, 2.75% of the "spending" Ghent, Belgium: 2.6% of the searches, 2.72% of the "spending" La Paz, Bolivia: 15.3% of the searches, 14.55% of the "spending" Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia: 29.9% of the searches, 26.52% of the "spending" Banja Luka, Bosnia and Herzegovina: 9.6% of the searches, 8.97% of the "spending" Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina: 4.5% of the searches, 3.9% of the "spending" Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina: 26.1% of the searches, 21.96% of the "spending" Belo Horizonte, Brazil: 1.9% of the searches, 1.75% of the "spending" Brasilia, Brazil: 2% of the searches, 1.93% of the "spending" Curitiba, Brazil: 2.1% of the searches, 1.79% of the "spending" Fortaleza, Brazil: 1.6% of the searches, 1.52% of the "spending" Porto Alegre, Brazil: 1.5% of the searches, 1.38% of the "spending" Recife, Brazil: 0.9% of the searches, 0.78% of the "spending" Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: 4.3% of the searches, 4.18% of the "spending" Salvador, Brazil: 1.3% of the searches, 1.34% of the "spending" Sao Paulo, Brazil: 11% of the searches, 10.2% of the "spending" Burgas, Bulgaria: 3.1% of the searches, 2.95% of the "spending" Plovdiv, Bulgaria: 6.3% of the searches, 5.45% of the "spending" Sofia, Bulgaria: 48.1% of the searches, 47.62% of the "spending" Varna, Bulgaria: 8.9% of the searches, 7.96% of the "spending" Calgary, Canada: 4.3% of the searches, 4.44% of the "spending" Edmonton, Canada: 2.6% of the searches, 2.77% of the "spending" Hamilton, Canada: 1.5% of the searches, 1.52% of the "spending" Montreal, Canada: 6.9% of the searches, 6.33% of the "spending" Ottawa, Canada: 2.7% of the searches, 2.77% of the "spending" Quebec City, Canada: 1.8% of the searches, 1.86% of the "spending" Toronto, Canada: 11.2% of the searches, 10.21% of the "spending" Vancouver, Canada: 2.9% of the searches, 2.9% of the "spending" Winnipeg, Canada: 1.8% of the searches, 1.84% of the "spending" Concepcion, Chile: 3.6% of the searches, 3.51% of the "spending" Santiago, Chile: 41.9% of the searches, 40.35% of the "spending" Valparaiso, Chile: 2.1% of the searches, 2.6% of the "spending" Barranquilla, Colombia: 3.8% of the searches, 3.84% of the "spending" Bogota, Colombia: 30.4% of the searches, 29.66% of the "spending" Cali, Colombia: 6.8% of the searches, 6.93% of the "spending" Medellin, Colombia: 10.3% of the searches, 10.63% of the "spending" San Jose, Costa Rica: 20.7% of the searches, 22.02% of the "spending" Rijeka, Croatia: 4.3% of the searches, 4.37% of the "spending" Split, Croatia: 4.6% of the searches, 5.38% of the "spending" Zagreb, Croatia: 49.4% of the searches, 46.73% of the "spending" Limassol, Cyprus: 22.2% of the searches, 18.58% of the "spending" Nicosia, Cyprus: 15.5% of the searches, 16.98% of the "spending" Brno, Czechia: 6.4% of the searches, 6.22% of the "spending" Ostrava, Czechia: 4.4% of the searches, 4.25% of the "spending" Plzen, Czechia: 1.7% of the searches, 1.47% of the "spending" Prague, Czechia: 36.3% of the searches, 36.98% of the "spending" Aarhus, Denmark: 10.1% of the searches, 8.87% of the "spending" Copenhagen, Denmark: 30.3% of the searches, 28.52% of the "spending" Odense, Denmark: 3.3% of the searches, 2.99% of the "spending" Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic: 29.1% of the searches, 26.81% of the "spending" Guayaquil, Ecuador: 20.6% of the searches, 18.24% of the "spending" Quito, Ecuador: 30.9% of the searches, 30.54% of the "spending" Alexandria, Egypt: 8.1% of the searches, 7.62% of the "spending" Cairo, Egypt: 10.7% of the searches, 10.95% of the "spending" San Salvador, El Salvador: 32.7% of the searches, 32.49% of the "spending" Tallinn, Estonia: 60.5% of the searches, 61.15% of the "spending" Tartu, Estonia: 8.7% of the searches, 7.88% of the "spending" Espoo, Finland: 3.2% of the searches, 2.46% of the "spending" Helsinki, Finland: 27.1% of the searches, 27.55% of the "spending" Tampere, Finland: 3.6% of the searches, 3.07% of the "spending" Bordeaux, France: 1.6% of the searches, 1.54% of the "spending" Lille, France: 1.6% of the searches, 2.25% of the "spending" Lyon, France: 2.9% of the searches, 2.86% of the "spending" Marseille, France: 1.9% of the searches, 1.48% of the "spending" Montpellier, France: 0.7% of the searches, 0.62% of the "spending" Nantes, France: 0.7% of the searches, 0.8% of the "spending" Nice, France: 0.9% of the searches, 0.83% of the "spending" Paris, France: 15.1% of the searches, 15.5% of the "spending" Strasbourg, France: 1.3% of the searches, 1.43% of the "spending" Toulouse, France: 1.5% of the searches, 1.52% of the "spending" Batumi, Georgia: 9% of the searches, 7.36% of the "spending" Tbilisi, Georgia: 76.2% of the searches, 74.64% of the "spending" Berlin, Germany: 6.2% of the searches, 5.53% of the "spending" Cologne, Germany: 1.9% of the searches, 1.89% of the "spending" Dortmund, Germany: 1.1% of the searches, 1.01% of the "spending" Dresden, Germany: 1% of the searches, 0.91% of the "spending" Dusseldorf, Germany: 1.4% of the searches, 1.07% of the "spending" Frankfurt, Germany: 6.9% of the searches, 7.84% of the "spending" Hamburg, Germany: 2.8% of the searches, 2.75% of the "spending" Leipzig, Germany: 1.2% of the searches, 1.25% of the "spending" Munich, Germany: 2.9% of the searches, 2.81% of the "spending" Stuttgart, Germany: 1.6% of the searches, 1.48% of the "spending" Accra, Ghana: 65.2% of the searches, 68.19% of the "spending" Athens, Greece: 27.3% of the searches, 25.52% of the "spending" Heraklion, Greece: 1.4% of the searches, 1.35% of the "spending" Patras, Greece: 1.8% of the searches, 1.64% of the "spending" Thessaloniki, Greece: 9.7% of the searches, 9.35% of the "spending" Guatemala City, Guatemala: 41.9% of the searches, 44.13% of the "spending" Budapest, Hungary: 39.5% of the searches, 39.74% of the "spending" Debrecen, Hungary: 2.2% of the searches, 2.32% of the "spending" Miskolc, Hungary: 1.5% of the searches, 1.46% of the "spending" Szeged, Hungary: 1.9% of the searches, 1.82% of the "spending" Reykjavik, Iceland: 63.9% of the searches, 58.23% of the "spending" Ahmedabad, India: 1.9% of the searches, 1.8% of the "spending" Bengaluru, India: 7.1% of the searches, 6.09% of the "spending" Chennai, India: 3.5% of the searches, 3.03% of the "spending" Delhi, India: 5% of the searches, 4.33% of the "spending" Hyderabad, India: 3% of the searches, 2.74% of the "spending" Kolkata, India: 3% of the searches, 3.02% of the "spending" Mumbai, India: 4.6% of the searches, 4.54% of the "spending" Pune, India: 3.5% of the searches, 3.21% of the "spending" Denpasar, Indonesia: 0.6% of the searches, 0.45% of the "spending" Jakarta, Indonesia: 19.7% of the searches, 17.48% of the "spending" Surabaya, Indonesia: 3.5% of the searches, 3.26% of the "spending" Cork, Ireland: 5.1% of the searches, 4.8% of the "spending" Dublin, Ireland: 43.9% of the searches, 42.62% of the "spending" Limerick, Ireland: 1.7% of the searches, 1.53% of the "spending" Haifa, Israel: 2.8% of the searches, 2.52% of the "spending" Jerusalem, Israel: 5.4% of the searches, 4.44% of the "spending" Tel Aviv, Israel: 23% of the searches, 22.51% of the "spending" Bari, Italy: 0.8% of the searches, 0.86% of the "spending" Bologna, Italy: 1.8% of the searches, 1.7% of the "spending" Florence, Italy: 1.4% of the searches, 1.32% of the "spending" Genoa, Italy: 1.1% of the searches, 0.89% of the "spending" Milan, Italy: 16.6% of the searches, 16.57% of the "spending" Naples, Italy: 2.5% of the searches, 2.3% of the "spending" Palermo, Italy: 1.4% of the searches, 1.25% of the "spending" Rome, Italy: 7.3% of the searches, 7.42% of the "spending" Turin, Italy: 2.5% of the searches, 2.64% of the "spending" Venice, Italy: 0.6% of the searches, 0.67% of the "spending" Kingston, Jamaica: 45.6% of the searches, 41.31% of the "spending" Fukuoka, Japan: 1.5% of the searches, 1.39% of the "spending" Kyoto, Japan: 1.5% of the searches, 1.34% of the "spending" Nagoya, Japan: 1.7% of the searches, 1.63% of the "spending" Osaka, Japan: 6.1% of the searches, 5.43% of the "spending" Sapporo, Japan: 1.4% of the searches, 1.29% of the "spending" Tokyo, Japan: 26% of the searches, 23.85% of the "spending" Yokohama, Japan: 3% of the searches, 2.77% of the "spending" Amman, Jordan: 79.7% of the searches, 71.21% of the "spending" Almaty, Kazakhstan: 28.2% of the searches, 23.15% of the "spending" Astana, Kazakhstan: 18.7% of the searches, 16.25% of the "spending" Nairobi, Kenya: 49.3% of the searches, 43.58% of the "spending" Pristina, Kosovo: 27% of the searches, 27.04% of the "spending" Prizren, Kosovo: 15.1% of the searches, 13.95% of the "spending" Riga, Latvia: 69.7% of the searches, 70.49% of the "spending" Kaunas, Lithuania: 15% of the searches, 14.95% of the "spending" Klaipeda, Lithuania: 7.7% of the searches, 7.49% of the "spending" Vilnius, Lithuania: 47.2% of the searches, 47.12% of the "spending" Luxembourg, Luxembourg: 52.2% of the searches, 47.09% of the "spending" Johor Bahru, Malaysia: 3.8% of the searches, 3.71% of the "spending" Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: 28.8% of the searches, 29.17% of the "spending" Cancun, Mexico: 1.2% of the searches, 1.22% of the "spending" Guadalajara, Mexico: 2.3% of the searches, 2.38% of the "spending" Leon, Mexico: 1.4% of the searches, 1.39% of the "spending" Merida, Mexico: 1.3% of the searches, 1.38% of the "spending" Mexico City, Mexico: 14.4% of the searches, 14.35% of the "spending" Monterrey, Mexico: 2.2% of the searches, 2.21% of the "spending" Puebla, Mexico: 2.1% of the searches, 2.05% of the "spending" Queretaro, Mexico: 1.6% of the searches, 1.52% of the "spending" Tijuana, Mexico: 2.8% of the searches, 2.8% of the "spending" Chisinau, Moldova: 60.1% of the searches, 53.96% of the "spending" Podgorica, Montenegro: 58.3% of the searches, 46.43% of the "spending" Casablanca, Morocco: 15.5% of the searches, 15.23% of the "spending" Marrakesh, Morocco: 12.6% of the searches, 11.52% of the "spending" Amsterdam, Netherlands: 17.5% of the searches, 16.88% of the "spending" Rotterdam, Netherlands: 7.5% of the searches, 7.96% of the "spending" The Hague, Netherlands: 2.7% of the searches, 3.22% of the "spending" Utrecht, Netherlands: 1.5% of the searches, 1.46% of the "spending" Auckland, New Zealand: 32.6% of the searches, 30.35% of the "spending" Christchurch, New Zealand: 15.4% of the searches, 14.62% of the "spending" Wellington, New Zealand: 7.1% of the searches, 6.52% of the "spending" Abuja, Nigeria: 9.9% of the searches, 11.01% of the "spending" Lagos, Nigeria: 35.5% of the searches, 40.95% of the "spending" Bitola, North Macedonia: 4.9% of the searches, 6.96% of the "spending" Kumanovo, North Macedonia: 4.3% of the searches, 3.65% of the "spending" Skopje, North Macedonia: 50.9% of the searches, 40.95% of the "spending" Bergen, Norway: 6.9% of the searches, 5.51% of the "spending" Oslo, Norway: 18.7% of the searches, 20.13% of the "spending" Trondheim, Norway: 3.6% of the searches, 2.84% of the "spending" Asuncion, Paraguay: 28.2% of the searches, 29.98% of the "spending" Arequipa, Peru: 2.3% of the searches, 1.95% of the "spending" Lima, Peru: 5.6% of the searches, 5.34% of the "spending" Cebu City, Philippines: 5.1% of the searches, 4.83% of the "spending" Davao City, Philippines: 5% of the searches, 4.81% of the "spending" Manila, Philippines: 5.5% of the searches, 5.12% of the "spending" Quezon City, Philippines: 9.7% of the searches, 8.61% of the "spending" Krakow, Poland: 4.7% of the searches, 4.99% of the "spending" Lodz, Poland: 2.9% of the searches, 2.64% of the "spending" Poznan, Poland: 4.7% of the searches, 5.16% of the "spending" Warsaw, Poland: 18.7% of the searches, 19.54% of the "spending" Wroclaw, Poland: 6.9% of the searches, 5.88% of the "spending" Braga, Portugal: 1.2% of the searches, 1.78% of the "spending" Coimbra, Portugal: 1.2% of the searches, 1.23% of the "spending" Lisbon, Portugal: 24.5% of the searches, 21.66% of the "spending" Porto, Portugal: 9.4% of the searches, 8.58% of the "spending" San Juan, Puerto Rico: 31.8% of the searches, 31.7% of the "spending" Bucharest, Romania: 21.6% of the searches, 20.13% of the "spending" Cluj-Napoca, Romania: 5.1% of the searches, 5.53% of the "spending" Iasi, Romania: 3.1% of the searches, 3.05% of the "spending" Timisoara, Romania: 3% of the searches, 3.27% of the "spending" Belgrade, Serbia: 41.4% of the searches, 40.75% of the "spending" Nis, Serbia: 4.5% of the searches, 3.59% of the "spending" Novi Sad, Serbia: 2.6% of the searches, 2.35% of the "spending" Bratislava, Slovakia: 35% of the searches, 34.91% of the "spending" Kosice, Slovakia: 4.8% of the searches, 4.48% of the "spending" Presov, Slovakia: 1.4% of the searches, 1.53% of the "spending" Ljubljana, Slovenia: 36% of the searches, 36.25% of the "spending" Maribor, Slovenia: 10% of the searches, 7.88% of the "spending" Cape Town, South Africa: 20.1% of the searches, 19.38% of the "spending" Durban, South Africa: 3.9% of the searches, 2.63% of the "spending" Johannesburg, South Africa: 5.8% of the searches, 4.99% of the "spending" Pretoria, South Africa: 9.3% of the searches, 10.19% of the "spending" Busan, South Korea: 7.3% of the searches, 6.41% of the "spending" Incheon, South Korea: 7.1% of the searches, 6.39% of the "spending" Seoul, South Korea: 34.2% of the searches, 34.31% of the "spending" Alicante, Spain: 0.8% of the searches, 0.75% of the "spending" Barcelona, Spain: 6.7% of the searches, 7.12% of the "spending" Bilbao, Spain: 1.9% of the searches, 1.83% of the "spending" Las Palmas, Spain: 1.8% of the searches, 1.83% of the "spending" Madrid, Spain: 14.2% of the searches, 13.53% of the "spending" Malaga, Spain: 2.1% of the searches, 2.14% of the "spending" Palma, Spain: 1.6% of the searches, 1.53% of the "spending" Seville, Spain: 2.6% of the searches, 2.9% of the "spending" Valencia, Spain: 3.6% of the searches, 3.61% of the "spending" Zaragoza, Spain: 1.7% of the searches, 1.6% of the "spending" Colombo, Sri Lanka: 40.7% of the searches, 38.77% of the "spending" Gothenburg, Sweden: 7.7% of the searches, 7.01% of the "spending" Malmo, Sweden: 6.4% of the searches, 6.11% of the "spending" Stockholm, Sweden: 26.8% of the searches, 20.43% of the "spending" Uppsala, Sweden: 1.9% of the searches, 1.64% of the "spending" Basel, Switzerland: 2% of the searches, 2.01% of the "spending" Geneva, Switzerland: 1.5% of the searches, 1.43% of the "spending" Lausanne, Switzerland: 6.6% of the searches, 6.27% of the "spending" Zurich, Switzerland: 24.2% of the searches, 20.33% of the "spending" Taichung, Taiwan: 5.7% of the searches, 5.36% of the "spending" Taipei, Taiwan: 39.3% of the searches, 38.2% of the "spending" Bangkok, Thailand: 38.8% of the searches, 36.22% of the "spending" Chiang Mai, Thailand: 2.2% of the searches, 1.93% of the "spending" Pattaya, Thailand: 2.4% of the searches, 2.09% of the "spending" Tunis, Tunisia: 26.3% of the searches, 22.72% of the "spending" Ankara, Türkiye: 7.1% of the searches, 7.02% of the "spending" Antalya, Türkiye: 2.2% of the searches, 2.14% of the "spending" Bursa, Türkiye: 2.9% of the searches, 2.81% of the "spending" Istanbul, Türkiye: 21.8% of the searches, 20.42% of the "spending" Izmir, Türkiye: 4.9% of the searches, 5.29% of the "spending" Dnipro, Ukraine: 6.4% of the searches, 5.82% of the "spending" Kharkiv, Ukraine: 4.7% of the searches, 4.14% of the "spending" Kyiv, Ukraine: 27.8% of the searches, 27.48% of the "spending" Lviv, Ukraine: 9.2% of the searches, 8.14% of the "spending" Odesa, Ukraine: 5.7% of the searches, 6% of the "spending" Belfast, United Kingdom: 0.5% of the searches, 0.48% of the "spending" Birmingham, United Kingdom: 2.4% of the searches, 2.24% of the "spending" Bristol, United Kingdom: 0.9% of the searches, 0.92% of the "spending" Cardiff, United Kingdom: 0.4% of the searches, 0.42% of the "spending" Edinburgh, United Kingdom: 1% of the searches, 1.03% of the "spending" Glasgow, United Kingdom: 1.6% of the searches, 1.45% of the "spending" Leeds, United Kingdom: 1.1% of the searches, 1.06% of the "spending" Liverpool, United Kingdom: 0.8% of the searches, 0.76% of the "spending" London, United Kingdom: 13.7% of the searches, 13.59% of the "spending" Manchester, United Kingdom: 1.6% of the searches, 1.47% of the "spending" Sheffield, United Kingdom: 0.5% of the searches, 0.46% of the "spending" Albuquerque, United States: 0.3% of the searches, 0.27% of the "spending" Anaheim, United States: 0.2% of the searches, 0.22% of the "spending" Arlington, United States: 0.1% of the searches, 0.1% of the "spending" Atlanta, United States: 0.8% of the searches, 0.82% of the "spending" Aurora, United States: 0.1% of the searches, 0.14% of the "spending" Austin, United States: 0.6% of the searches, 0.63% of the "spending" Bakersfield, United States: 0.2% of the searches, 0.15% of the "spending" Baltimore, United States: 0.4% of the searches, 0.45% of the "spending" Boston, United States: 0.4% of the searches, 0.46% of the "spending" Charlotte, United States: 0.4% of the searches, 0.45% of the "spending" Chicago, United States: 1.8% of the searches, 1.6% of the "spending" Cincinnati, United States: 0.3% of the searches, 0.3% of the "spending" Cleveland, United States: 0.4% of the searches, 0.42% of the "spending" Colorado Springs, United States: 0.2% of the searches, 0.19% of the "spending" Columbus, United States: 0.4% of the searches, 0.42% of the "spending" Corpus Christi, United States: 0.1% of the searches, 0.1% of the "spending" Dallas, United States: 0.8% of the searches, 0.85% of the "spending" Denver, United States: 0.8% of the searches, 0.8% of the "spending" Detroit, United States: 0.4% of the searches, 0.41% of the "spending" Durham, United States: 0.1% of the searches, 0.1% of the "spending" El Paso, United States: 0.3% of the searches, 0.3% of the "spending" Fort Worth, United States: 0.4% of the searches, 0.38% of the "spending" Fresno, United States: 0.2% of the searches, 0.18% of the "spending" Greensboro, United States: 0.1% of the searches, 0.1% of the "spending" Henderson, United States: 0.1% of the searches, 0.1% of the "spending" Honolulu, United States: 0.2% of the searches, 0.2% of the "spending" Houston, United States: 1.2% of the searches, 1.19% of the "spending" Indianapolis, United States: 0.4% of the searches, 0.39% of the "spending" Irvine, United States: 0.1% of the searches, 0.1% of the "spending" Jacksonville, United States: 0.3% of the searches, 0.34% of the "spending" Jersey City, United States: 0.1% of the searches, 0.1% of the "spending" Kansas City, United States: 0.3% of the searches, 0.28% of the "spending" Las Vegas, United States: 0.7% of the searches, 0.66% of the "spending" Lexington, United States: 0.1% of the searches, 0.1% of the "spending" Lincoln, United States: 0.1% of the searches, 0.1% of the "spending" Long Beach, United States: 0.2% of the searches, 0.15% of the "spending" Los Angeles, United States: 2.6% of the searches, 2.38% of the "spending" Louisville, United States: 0.2% of the searches, 0.25% of the "spending" Memphis, United States: 0.1% of the searches, 0.13% of the "spending" Mesa, United States: 0.2% of the searches, 0.16% of the "spending" Miami, United States: 0.5% of the searches, 0.56% of the "spending" Milwaukee, United States: 0.3% of the searches, 0.27% of the "spending" Minneapolis, United States: 0.5% of the searches, 0.5% of the "spending" Nashville, United States: 0.3% of the searches, 0.3% of the "spending" New Orleans, United States: 0.2% of the searches, 0.19% of the "spending" New York, United States: 3.4% of the searches, 3.12% of the "spending" Newark, United States: 0.1% of the searches, 0.11% of the "spending" Oakland, United States: 0.1% of the searches, 0.11% of the "spending" Oklahoma City, United States: 0.3% of the searches, 0.27% of the "spending" Omaha, United States: 0.2% of the searches, 0.24% of the "spending" Orlando, United States: 0.5% of the searches, 0.47% of the "spending" Philadelphia, United States: 0.7% of the searches, 0.65% of the "spending" Phoenix, United States: 0.8% of the searches, 0.86% of the "spending" Pittsburgh, United States: 0.3% of the searches, 0.3% of the "spending" Portland, United States: 0.4% of the searches, 0.4% of the "spending" Raleigh, United States: 0.3% of the searches, 0.3% of the "spending" Riverside, United States: 0.2% of the searches, 0.19% of the "spending" Sacramento, United States: 0.5% of the searches, 0.49% of the "spending" San Antonio, United States: 0.6% of the searches, 0.64% of the "spending" San Diego, United States: 0.7% of the searches, 0.74% of the "spending" San Francisco, United States: 0.5% of the searches, 0.48% of the "spending" San Jose, United States: 0.5% of the searches, 0.43% of the "spending" Santa Ana, United States: 0.1% of the searches, 0.1% of the "spending" Seattle, United States: 1% of the searches, 0.83% of the "spending" St. Paul, United States: 0.3% of the searches, 0.24% of the "spending" Stockton, United States: 0.1% of the searches, 0.11% of the "spending" Tampa, United States: 0.3% of the searches, 0.33% of the "spending" Tucson, United States: 0.2% of the searches, 0.22% of the "spending" Tulsa, United States: 0.1% of the searches, 0.11% of the "spending" Virginia Beach, United States: 0.2% of the searches, 0.21% of the "spending" Washington, United States: 0.3% of the searches, 0.33% of the "spending" Wichita, United States: 0.1% of the searches, 0.12% of the "spending" Montevideo, Uruguay: 58.4% of the searches, 59.32% of the "spending" Tashkent, Uzbekistan: 57.5% of the searches, 52.4% of the "spending" Caracas, Venezuela: 19.7% of the searches, 19.28% of the "spending" Maracaibo, Venezuela: 6.8% of the searches, 6.16% of the "spending" Hanoi, Vietnam: 22.5% of the searches, 21.14% of the "spending" Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam: 22.9% of the searches, 22.48% of the "spending" Mumbai: 4.6% of searches, 4.54% of the spending Share of country's searches Share of country's "spending"
Source: JuicyInsights cities.csv (share_of_country_searches_pct, share_of_country_spend_pct). Hover a dot for the city.
CityShare of searchesShare of "spending""Spending"
Milan
Italy		16.6%16.57%$39,733,953
Mexico City
Mexico		14.4%14.35%$22,297,918
Mumbai
India		4.6%4.54%$1,685,854
London
United Kingdom		13.7%13.59%$54,764,290
Rome
Italy		7.3%7.42%$17,797,829
Melbourne
Australia		18.5%18.63%$36,322,564
Manchester
United Kingdom		1.6%1.47%$5,941,322

A search from a wealthy district counts the same as one from a poor district. How a search in Mumbai is weighed against a search in Sydney when the rest-of-world pot is shared out isn't explained anywhere on the page. If they make any allowance for income or for how many searchers actually pay, they don't say what it is. There is no methodology page. There is a map, a download button and a press email.

Why build it at all

Look. We understand why they built it. OnlyGuider.com has picked up a lot of links from its "spending reports", with dozens of journalists quoting its figures. (I'll address OnlyGuider's reports in another post.) JuicySearch wanted in on the action.

And it is working. In October the Serbian site B92 ran the figures under the headline "OnlyFans data shocking", with Serbia's spending put at $8.9 million and Belgrade's share at 41%, and no word about how any of it was worked out. Bosnian outlets ran "4.8 million KM spent on OnlyFans" as a headline. N1 at least called it "the estimate of one commercial search engine, not official statistics", which is more care than most took.

Not the first time

JuicySearch has form for dressing up numbers. In September a brand new "independent" review site, ofsearchengines.com, appeared with 45 reviews of OnlyFans search engines, all dated the same day. It names no owner, no author and no tester, and it earns nothing we can see. Its scores are presented as the result of "hands-on tests", yet nobody is named as having done them. JuicySearch comes first on both of its rankings. Second and fourth go to Facedigger and SpicyRush, two sites that share JuicySearch's ad server.

A ranking like that has one obvious use: to be repeated by AI assistants when someone asks for the best OnlyFans search engine. The watchdog site llmspam.com lists ofsearchengines.com as a review site owned by JuicySearch, and has offered to publish a reply in full if JuicySearch disputes it. As far as I know, no reply has come.

A note for journalists

The worldwide total of $7.8 billion comes from OnlyFans' accounts, and you can quote it. So can the regional revenue figures, as long as you call them revenue and not fan spending.

Everything else in this report is made-up precision: spending for every country and city given to the dollar, growth rates for places where searches fell by a third. None of it was measured.

If you are a journalist and you publish these "findings", please understand that you are publishing nonsense figures.