With the first four March Madness games complete, DraftKings had the lowest prices across those contests, according to Citizens.
DraftKings had the lowest prices across the first four March Madness games, according to a 19 March report from Citizens analysing sportsbooks and prediction markets.
The First Four is the opening round of the NCAA basketball tournaments. It is played to reduce the number of teams before the main tournament begins.
Two of the games feature the lowest seeded automatic qualifiers competing for a spot in the main tournament. The other two feature the lowest seeded at-large teams competing for the last two spots in the 64-team tournament that follows.
Jordan Bender of Citizens compared pricing, measured by implied operator margin or vig, across DraftKings, FanDuel, Fanatics, and Kalshi. Data was collected on game day for each matchup, producing eight pricing points per operator.
DraftKings recorded the lowest average vig at 4.57%, narrowly ahead of FanDuel at 4.64% and Fanatics at 4.68%. Kalshi posted the highest average at 4.89%.
Across individual matchups, pricing leadership varied. DraftKings led in two games, while FanDuel and Kalshi each offered the lowest vig in others.
The differences, while marginal, highlight how operators continue to calibrate margins during high-volume events such as March Madness.
The report also projects that the tournament will generate approximately $3bn in legal betting handle, representing a 3% year-on-year decline.
This figure puts expectations slightly lower than the American Gaming Association’s recently forecasted handle of $3.3bn.
Bender attributes the anticipated dip to inflated comparisons from the previous year, when favourites consistently won, driving higher betting churn.
Seasonal factors, including reduced engagement following the NFL season, also contributed to the expectation of softer volumes.
Revenue margins could increase
Despite lower handle expectations, underlying revenue conditions appear more favourable.
Prior-year margins were near zero, creating what analysts describe as an easier comparative environment. This dynamic is expected to support stronger net gaming revenue performance over the course of the tournament.
The findings challenge a common assumption that prediction markets consistently deliver better pricing than traditional sportsbooks.
While platforms such as Polymarket were noted as having minimal fee structures, Kalshi’s pricing lagged behind sportsbook operators in these high-liquidity markets.
Bender concluded that the perceived pricing advantage of exchanges remains tenuous in practice, particularly for mainstream betting events.
Kalshi’s fee structure was also examined in detail. The platform charges transaction fees averaging about $1.70 per 100 contracts during the tournament, slightly higher than its NFL season average.
These fees are typically applied to retail users, while more favourable terms are extended to high-volume or institutional participants.
This model is designed to incentivise liquidity provision, though it creates a pricing dichotomy between user segments.
Volume trends further distinguish the platforms. Kalshi recorded approximately $65m in total volume across the First Four games, with 76% of activity occurring in-play.
This exceeds the estimated 40-50% in-play share seen at traditional sportsbooks during the tournament.
Separately, FanDuel’s prediction product surpassed Kalshi in weekly app downloads for the first time, driven by promotional incentives tied to external events.
The shift suggests increasing competition in user acquisition as operators seek to coalesce sports betting and prediction market audiences.