New gTLD Application as an Investment

Leading up to the 2012 New gTLD Application Round, there was little consensus on the economic viability of the new domain extensions: Would many TLDs fail and leave registrants stranded? Or would most succeed once businesses begin to prefer brand.keyword web addresses over brand.com?

Any industry observer can see that the 2012 TLDs were neither a complete failure, nor did their adoption began posing a serious threat to .com’s dominance. More granular financial analysis is difficult. Given that registry financial data is largely private, only the registries themselves know which TLDs were profitable and which were not.

As several registries that operate 2012-round TLDs applied again in 2026, their behavior is our best glimpse into how industry participants view the financial outlook for new gTLDs. To arrive at real conclusions about the market for new TLDs, this article will look at these “repeat applicants” themselves, what types of strings they applied for and their tolerance for competing with other applicants for the same string.

Companies of All Types and Sizes Can Profit from Operating gTLDs

This section focuses on the registries that do the most significant business selling 2012-round TLDs. With one exception, each was active in the 2026 round.

The sample of registrars analyzed can be found on the table below, with the number of domain applications from each round, according to ICANN’s 2012 application records and the 2026 application list:

* Some or all acquired from other applicants.

Two things jump out from this sample. First, the companies are very different from one another: Some are among the largest corporations in the world, others are major actors in the domain and web services space, and still others are pureplay new gTLD registries. Second, only one company among the sample notably reduced their investment, once the higher application fee is taken into consideration.

Tech giants Amazon and Google, for which registry operations surely represent a minuscule portion of overall revenue, scaled back only slightly. The fact that they participated again is more informative than the fact that the overall applications were reduced. Both companies apparently found value in increasing their TLD offerings, a vote of confidence for new gTLDs in general.

New gTLDs are more important to the businesses of Radix and GMO Registry, but parents of both offer additional domain name and related products. Radix increased its application total as compared to 2012, while GMO Registry did not participate. This contrast is perhaps a point of evidence suggesting that the new gTLD business is conducive to a volume approach. Radix was more eager to repeat their strategy of applying for many strings, than GMO which applied for few strings overall in 2012 and applied most of its investment into winning the auction for .SHOP for 41.5 million USD.

Identity Digital, ShortDot and .XYZ are new gTLD registries first and foremost, founded by longtime domain industry participants. Their financial backers bet that knowledge of distribution channels would be enough for these registries to compete with other companies with more resources and/or the capacity to integrate vertically. These bets apparently paid off, as each registry is again among the largest applicants in 2026.

What Types of Strings Did the Repeat Applicants Select?

In 2012, Google, Identity Digital and Radix applied for meaningful, English language strings with a large pool of prospective registrants. Granted they were smaller overall investments, other registries bet on city/region names, internationalized domains, smaller niches or meaningless strings.

These three registries repeated their strategies in 2026 and we’d argue that other major players have began to follow suit, leading to a conclusion that meaningful, English words and abbreviations are the most profitable investment.

GeoTLD applications plummeted from 70 in 2012 to just 13 in 2026. Strings in foreign languages are also down from 116 in 2012 to 21 in 2026. The trend away from small niches is harder to quantify, but scanning application lists from both rounds gives the impression that the 2026 strings are “broader.”

The “meaningless yet memorable” TLDs, think for example .xyz or .icu from the 2012 round, are back in 2026. Notably, there are at least 7 applications consisting of one repeating letter (ex. .zzz). However, the applications of ShortDot and .XYZ, the registries for the aforementioned .xyz and .icu, are perhaps more informative. Despite selling millions of domains under these meaningless strings, their 2026 applications consisted entirely of words and well-known abbreviations, with the possible exception of .iam or .ent.

Are the Repeat Applicants Willing to Fight for the Most Desirable Strings?

Auctions arising from the 2012 round fetched some staggering amounts. Apart from the 41.5 million USD for .SHOP mentioned above, .APP went to Google for 25 million and, .TECH to Radix for 6.7 million and .WEB to Verisign for a record 135 million USD. We’d argue these amounts can be interpreted as a bet that the best domain extensions were going to be the best sellers.

If we look at registration numbers, this seems to have come true: .SHOP is in the #3 position among new gTLDs with 7.8 million domains under management, .APP at #9 with 2.1 million and .TECH at #21 with 840,000. So, it would naturally follow that the most sought-after domains in the 2026 round will command huge sums at auction and go on to become among the best-sellers of this batch. Right?

We’re not so sure about that. First, take the example cited above of GMO Registry’s .SHOP. This registry did not apply for any TLDs in the 2026 round. It would seem they were not interested in repeating their experience with .SHOP, paying a high amount to secure it and then registering millions of domains.

It goes beyond the .SHOP example. Link Freedom Group (LFG) was the largest single applicant in the 2026 round, with 158 applications. Multiply that number by the $227,000 USD and we see that this applicant has already nearly 36 million USD already. That’s considerable funding.

Soon after Reveal Day, LFG announced it had chosen to proceed with 19 “replacement strings”. This is a new rule for 2026 that allows applicants to revert to a second choice if their primary string had other applicants. It’s an alternative to eventually facing the auction process. That the decision to go with these 19 replacement strings came so quickly is telling: We can take it to mean that they had decided prior to Reveal Day that they would not be aggressive in auctions and would let some nice strings go to other applicants.

Whether applicants end up breaking the bank to secure the most sought-after strings from the 2026 round remains to be seen. We’re wagering that the auction values will be lower this time around as a consensus has built around the volume approach.

Conclusions

Applying for new gTLDs can be good business for companies of all types and sizes, provided they both: (1) Select string(s) that are in the English language that imply a large pool of prospective registrants and (2) spread their investment among various strings, instead of spending it all on one “killer TLD.”

Innovators will continue to exist in the geoTLD, niche and IDN spaces, with less certain outcomes. However, this analysis leads us to speculate that memorable, English strings will dominate the rankings of new TLDs with most registrations and bring the greatest profits to their operators.

About IP Twins

IP Twins helps businesses and trademark owners navigate the evolving domain name landscape. Our expertise covers domain name portfolio management, online brand protection, dispute resolution and strategic advice on new gTLDs.

With the 2026 new gTLD application round reshaping the domain name industry, IP Twins supports organizations in identifying opportunities, assessing legal and commercial risks, and developing domain name strategies aligned with their business objectives.