FPPS vs PPLNS vs PPS+: How Payout Schemes Affect Your Income
Payout scheme is one of the most underrated parameters when choosing a mining pool. Two pools with the same fee can produce noticeably different income depending on whether they use FPPS, PPLNS, or PPS+. Here's how each scheme works and who it suits.
PPS+ (Pay Per Share Plus)
The pool pays a fixed amount for every valid share accepted, regardless of whether the pool actually finds a real block. On top of the base block reward, the pool also distributes transaction fees, hence the "plus" in the name.
Pros: maximally predictable income, the risk of pool bad luck sits entirely with the pool, not the miner.
Cons: usually a slightly higher fee, since the pool takes on the financial risk of missing blocks.
Best for: miners who value stable, predictable daily income, especially those calculating payback on a strict schedule.
FPPS (Full Pay Per Share)
Similar to PPS+, but with a cleaner split: the base block reward is paid at a fixed rate per share, while transaction fees are distributed separately, often based on current estimates of average mempool fee size.
Pros: predictability on par with PPS+, often a lower pool fee since the formula is simpler to administer.
Cons: during periods of sharply rising transaction fees (e.g. network congestion), FPPS may pay slightly less than the actual fees in blocks.
Best for: a universal choice for most miners, Foundry USA, the network's largest pool, uses FPPS.
PPLNS (Pay Per Last N Shares)
The pool only pays out when it actually finds a block, distributing the reward among miners proportionally to shares submitted during the last "window" of N shares, rather than a fixed time period.
Pros: usually the lowest fee of the three schemes, since all pool luck risk sits collectively with the miners.
Cons: income is less predictable day to day, if the pool has bad luck for a few hours, income temporarily dips, offset later by a lucky streak.
Best for: miners with a long horizon (weeks/months) who accept short-term volatility in exchange for a lower average fee.
Scheme Comparison at a Glance
| Parameter | PPS+ | FPPS | PPLNS |
|---|---|---|---|
| Income predictability | Maximum | High | Medium |
| Typical fee | 2-4% | 0-2% | 1-2% |
| Pool luck risk | On the pool | On the pool | On the miners |
| Transaction fees | Included | Included separately | From actual found blocks |
| Best for | Stability | General use | Long horizon |
For a real income breakdown across these schemes on specific hardware, see our TRUSTPOOL vs Foundry vs AntPool comparison. For a general pool selection guide, see how to choose a mining pool in 2026.
To see which scheme is more profitable for your specific hardware and electricity rate, run the numbers through our mining profitability calculator.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which scheme pays more on average?
Over the long run (months), all three schemes converge to similar average income net of fees, the main difference is volatility and who bears the risk of bad luck: the pool or the miner.
Can I switch payout scheme on the same pool?
Some large pools (AntPool, F2Pool, ViaBTC) let you choose the scheme in account settings, typically between FPPS/PPS+ and PPLNS for the same pool and same coin fee.
What should a small 1-5 ASIC farm choose?
Small farms are usually better off with FPPS or PPS+, predictable income matters more with limited hardware, where PPLNS's statistical averaging works less well.