Skip to main content
Free 24-hour trial Start now
DrexTV
Comparison

IPTV vs streaming services: the comparison nobody made when you cut the cord

Cancelling cable was supposed to be the end of it. Six years later the average cord-cutting household pays for a live TV bundle, a sports package and three on-demand apps, and the combined bill has quietly passed what cable cost. This page compares the two models honestly, including the four situations where streaming is the better answer.

Last reviewed 2 September 20268 min read

Quick answer

Is IPTV cheaper than streaming services?

Usually, once you compare like with like. Replicating what internet television delivers — live channels, live sport and an on-demand library — currently takes a live TV streaming bundle at $77–$83 a month, a league sports package at $15–$30, and two or three on-demand apps at $35–$50: roughly $130 to $172 a month. A DrexTV annual plan is $116.00, an effective $9.67 a month. If you only want one on-demand catalogue and watch no live television, a single streaming app is cheaper and simpler.

$130–$172
Monthly cost of a full streaming stack

Live bundle + sport + three apps

$9.67
DrexTV effective monthly

On the 12 months plan

0
Original productions we make

This is streaming's advantage, not ours

1
Guides, logins and bills

Instead of four or five

The arithmetic

What a full streaming stack actually costs in 2026

Not the headline price of one app — the total for a household that wants live channels, live sport and a decent on-demand catalogue.

Published 2026 monthly list prices, ad-free tiers where offered
SubscriptionMonthly costWhat it covers
A large general on-demand service, ad-free$18 – $25Originals and a rotating licensed catalogue
A second on-demand service, ad-free$12 – $18A different rotating catalogue; overlap is minimal
A third on-demand service$8 – $16Usually bought for one show, then kept
A live TV streaming bundle$77 – $8380–100 live channels and your local affiliates
A league-specific sports package$15 – $30Out-of-market games for one sport, blackouts still apply

Added up, that is $130 to $172 a month, or roughly $1,560 to $2,064 a year. It is also five separate bills, five interfaces, five search boxes and no single programme guide. The comparable DrexTV figure is $116.00 a year.

We are quoting bands rather than exact figures deliberately, because these services reprice several times a year and a precise number that is six months stale is worse than an honest range. Check your own bank statement rather than trusting our table or anyone else's — the exercise takes two minutes and the total is usually higher than people expect, because the subscriptions were added one at a time.

Head to head

Feature by feature, including where we lose

A comparison table that only favoured one side would tell you nothing. Three rows below go the other way, and one of them is decisive for some households.

DrexTV compared with a typical 2026 subscription-streaming stack
DrexTVStreaming stackBetter
Live linear channels24,000+ across 100+ countriesNone on on-demand apps; 80–100 on a live TV bundleIPTV
On-demand library140,000++ titles, aggregatedDeep but siloed — each app holds its own catalogueRoughly equal
Original productionsNone — we produce nothingThe entire reason these services existStreaming
Live sportEvery major league, no separate tier, pay-per-view includedFragmented across services and league packagesIPTV
Catalogue stabilityAggregated, so a title leaving one source is often still availableTitles rotate out monthly as licences expireIPTV
Interface and discoveryOne guide, one search, one loginPolished individually; incoherent collectivelyIPTV
4K and HDRIncluded on every planUsually restricted to the most expensive tierIPTV
AdvertisingNone inserted by us; whatever the source channel carriesCheaper tiers are ad-supported by designRoughly equal
Offline downloadsNot supportedSupported on most on-demand appsStreaming
Setup and hardwareAbout 5 minutes, devices you ownMinutes, devices you ownRoughly equal
Monthly cost for the full picture$9.67 on the annual plan$130 – $172 for the stack aboveIPTV

Analysis

Why unbundling ended up costing more than the bundle

This was not inevitable, and understanding the mechanism makes the next few years easier to predict.

The bundle was subsidising the parts you did not watch

A cable package was economically strange: you paid for 200 channels and watched twelve. The unwatched channels were not waste from the operator's point of view — carriage fees were negotiated in aggregate, and the bundle spread the cost of expensive content across subscribers who never touched it. Sports channels in particular were funded by households that did not watch sport.

Unbundling removed that cross-subsidy. When you buy only what you want, you pay the unsubsidised price for it, and for sport that price is high. This is why a single league's out-of-market package can cost $30 a month on its own: there is no longer anyone else helping to pay for it.

Every seller now prices its slice independently

In the bundle era one operator negotiated with many content owners and sold one price to you. Today each studio runs its own platform, each league sells direct, and each one prices to maximise its own revenue. Nobody is optimising your total bill, because nobody can see it. The predictable result is that the sum of the parts exceeds the old whole — and it will keep rising, because each seller's incentive is to raise its own price slightly and absorb the churn.

Exclusivity fragments the catalogue as well as the price

The second effect is discovery. A title is on one platform this year and another next, because most catalogue is licensed rather than owned. Households now routinely search three apps to find a film, or search a fourth to find out which of the three has it. The interfaces are individually excellent and collectively incoherent, and no amount of UI polish fixes a problem caused by rights allocation.

Where internet television sits in that structure

Aggregation after the fact. Internet television takes the linear channels — the ones carrying the sport, the news, the general entertainment — and puts them behind one guide with one search and one login. It does not solve the originals problem, because originals are exclusive by design. What it does solve is the live-television problem, which is where the fragmentation is worst and the money is largest.

Which is why the honest recommendation for most households is not “cancel everything”. It is: keep the one on-demand service whose originals you actually watch, drop the live bundle and the sports packages, and put internet television in their place. That combination is typically $9.67 plus one app rather than $130 to $172, and you lose almost nothing you were using.

Where streaming wins

Four situations where you should not switch

If any of these describes your household, subscription streaming is the better product and we would rather say so than take a subscription you will cancel in a fortnight.

You only watch originals

If your viewing is three prestige dramas a year and nothing else, a single on-demand subscription is cheaper, simpler and better. We produce no original content and never will — that is not a gap we are trying to close, and pretending otherwise would be silly.

You need offline downloads

On-demand apps let you download to a device for a flight or a commute. IPTV is a live delivery model and does not, which is a genuine limitation rather than a configuration problem. If you watch mostly on a train with no signal, this is decisive.

You watch almost no live television

The case for internet television is built on live channels, sport and a programme guide. If none of those matter to you, most of what you would be paying for goes unused, and a single on-demand app serves you better.

Your internet connection is unreliable

On-demand playback buffers far ahead and tolerates a poor line. Live streaming cannot, because it is happening now. On a connection that drops several times an evening, on-demand apps will feel noticeably more forgiving.

The same reasoning applied to cable rather than streaming — including the cases where cable still wins — is in IPTV vs cable.

99.9% uptime target

Run both for a day and compare your own bill

The free 24-hour trial needs no card details. Add up your current subscriptions while it runs, then decide which ones you would actually miss.

Questions and answers

IPTV vs streaming, answered directly

Is IPTV cheaper than streaming services?

Usually, and by a wide margin, once you compare like with like. Replicating what internet television delivers — live channels, live sport and an on-demand library — currently takes a live TV streaming bundle at $77–$83, a league sports package at $15–$30, and two or three on-demand apps at $35–$50, so roughly $130 to $172 a month. A DrexTV annual plan is $116.00, an effective $9.67 a month. If you only want one on-demand catalogue and no live television, a single streaming app is cheaper.

What is the difference between IPTV and streaming services like Netflix?

IPTV delivers live linear television — channels running to a schedule, with a programme guide — over an internet connection, alongside an on-demand library. Services like Netflix deliver on-demand catalogues only: there is no channel, no schedule and no guide. They also commission original programming, which IPTV providers do not. The two models overlap on on-demand films and series and differ completely on live television and sport.

Can IPTV replace all my streaming subscriptions?

It can replace a live TV bundle, a sports package and most general on-demand viewing. It cannot replace a specific service's original productions, because those exist only there. Realistically, many households keep one on-demand subscription for originals and drop the live bundle and the sports packages, which is where nearly all the saving sits anyway.

Why do titles keep disappearing from streaming services?

Because most of the catalogue is licensed rather than owned, and licences expire. A studio that leases a film to a platform for eighteen months can then move it, raise the price, or put it on its own service instead. An aggregated library is more resilient to this — when a title leaves one source it is often still available from another — but no service can guarantee a specific title indefinitely.

Is IPTV better than streaming for sport?

For breadth, clearly yes. Live rights are now split across broadcasters, league-specific direct-to-consumer products and streaming platforms, so following two or three sports through streaming apps typically means two or three subscriptions and working out which one has tonight's fixture. Internet television aggregates the linear channels carrying those rights into one guide, with pay-per-view events included rather than billed separately.

Do I still need a streaming subscription if I have IPTV?

Only for original productions and offline downloads. Those are the two things internet television genuinely does not provide. Many subscribers keep one on-demand service for exactly that reason and treat it as complementary rather than as a competitor — the combination still costs a fraction of a live bundle plus sports packages plus three apps.