SKAN null-rate charts need population and definition before a “healthy” target

Analysis

By UA Ledger staff2 min read

SKAN null-rate charts need population and definition before a “healthy” target

AppsFlyer’s ~11% average null CV rate is a vendor-sample observation with a dated window—not a universal health threshold.

AppsFlyer has publicly described an average SKAN null conversion-value rate around 11% across networks in its privacy-threshold analysis, and its dashboard docs define null rate as null-CV postbacks divided by installs. That is a vendor definition and a dated sample observation—not a “healthy” target every game should hit. Modeling post; SKAN dashboard.

Definition before target

Null is not zero. AppsFlyer’s materials distinguish null (CV withheld) from zero (install with no measurable action in the window). Null rates also vary with install volume against Apple’s undisclosed privacy threshold, campaign structure and SKAN version. A chart that omits population, period, OS version and whether modeled metrics are included cannot set a studio SLA.

The ~11% figure comes from an AppsFlyer analysis published in 2022 describing conditions after 2021 spikes. It is not automatically current for every network in 2026.

Refuse unmatched health scores

Our recommendation is to track your own null rate with the same formula and filters over time. Do not import a vendor average as a pass/fail threshold without matching population and definition.

Inspect the evidence

Download the source-population and comparability card. The extraction separates documented facts from our analysis and unknowns.

Reference table
FieldEvidence or limit
Report / publisherAppsFlyer SKAN null-CV analysis and dashboard docs / AppsFlyer
PeriodVendor analysis describing post-2021 stabilisation around ~11% (article dated 2022-11-07); not a 2026 census
PopulationAppsFlyer-observed SKAN postbacks across networks in the described analysis
Metric under reviewNull conversion value rate ≈ postbacks with null CV / installs × 100; ~11% average cited in analysis
AggregationCross-network average in vendor analysis; account dashboards are filterable
Critical limitThe ~11% figure is not a universal healthy target; period, network mix and modeled vs unmodeled reporting must match before comparison.
Comparable withThe same null-rate formula on a matched iOS/SKAN population and period
Not comparable withA studio SLA copied from an unmatched vendor chart or a zero-CV rate

Further reading in the existing archive: Blended ROAS Calculation: Where It Quietly Goes Wrong; The benchmark report is selling you something. These links provide background; this check does not independently verify their full contents.

Research checked 19 September 2026. Local draft; human editorial review and byline assignment pending.

Featured

Related posts

measurement

platforms

·

1 min read

When to turn rewarded ads off for payers (and how to measure the loss)

measurement

platforms

·

1 min read

When custom product pages need their own MMP campaign mapping

measurement

platforms

·

1 min read

Season pass refund rate versus standard IAP refund rate

measurement

platforms

·

1 min read

Pre-reg cohort quality vs post-launch paid cohort quality

More from the Measurement desk

measurement

media buying

·

1 min read

Thanksgiving week US F2P pacing checklist (not just BF)

measurement

·

1 min read

SKAN conversion values for an IAP-heavy F2P schema

measurement

media buying

·

1 min read

Payback target setting: D7 vs D30 vs full LTV for F2P genres

measurement

media buying

·

1 min read

Late postback / delayed purchase handling in F2P daily pacing