ChatGPT answers, unedited

For a mid-size online publication launching multiple paid newsletters with writer revenue splits, I would not optimize for a “creator platform” first. Your needs are closer to a multi-author publishing business:

• multiple newsletters under one umbrella
• different writers/contributors
• configurable revenue shares
• centralized subscriber ownership
• editorial controls
• accounting/reporting
• ability to scale beyond a single creator

The strongest options are:

Fieldwork Publishing House## My recommendation for your use case

1. Best overall: beehiiv + internal writer revenue accounting

For a mid-size publication, I’d start here.

Why:

• Built around newsletter businesses rather than individual writers
• Supports paid subscriptions without taking a percentage of subscription revenue (you still pay payment processing)
• Strong growth tools: referrals, recommendations, analytics, ads/sponsorship options
• Easier operational model when you have many newsletters

The limitation: writer revenue splits are not really a “marketplace” feature. You would likely:

1. Collect all subscription revenue centrally
2. Attribute revenue by newsletter/writer
3. Pay writers monthly according to contracts

This is how many media companies handle contributor economics anyway. Publishing House Beehiiv

Example:

• Newsletter A: $20,000/mo revenue
• Writer gets 40%
• Publication retains 60%
• Platform/payment fees deducted according to contract

2. Best long-term ownership: Ghost

If your publication wants to become a digital magazine with newsletters attached, Ghost is attractive.

Advantages:

• You own the publication infrastructure
• Memberships and paid subscriptions are native
• No platform revenue share
• More control over branding and reader relationships

Tradeoff:

• You will likely need custom tooling for writer dashboards, revenue attribution, and payouts. Fieldwork Sasanova

3. I would avoid Substack for this model

Substack is excellent for independent writers, but a publication running many writers may find it limiting.

Pros:

• Great writer experience
• Built-in discovery network
• Fast launch

Cons:

• 10% of paid subscription revenue goes to Substack
• Designed around individual publications rather than a publisher operating many brands
• Revenue-sharing workflows for staff writers are not its core strength

Publishing House Sasanova## Architecture I’d consider for a mid-size publisher

Option A — fastest launch

• beehiiv for newsletters + payments
• Stripe for payment processing
• Airtable/BI dashboard for revenue attribution
• Monthly writer payouts

Option B — enterprise-style

• Ghost or custom CMS as the publishing layer
• Stripe Billing
• Custom contributor portal
• Automated royalty calculations

Revenue split models that work well

Common approaches:

Writer royalty

• Writer receives 30–50% of net subscription revenue from their newsletter
• Publication owns audience, technology, sales, and marketing

Hybrid

• Small guaranteed fee + revenue share
• Example: $2,000/month + 20% of newsletter revenue

Performance ladder

• 20% until $5k MRR
• 35% after $5k MRR
• 50% after $20k MRR

This encourages writers to grow while protecting the publication during early stages.

Bottom line

For a mid-size online publication, I’d shortlist:

1. beehiiv — best operational fit for launching multiple paid newsletters quickly
2. Ghost — best if owning the platform and brand infrastructure matters most
3. Substack — best only if your model is “independent writers with their own audiences,” not “a publication managing many writers”

The key question is whether your writers are employees/contributors paid from shared revenue or independent creators who own their newsletters. That decision changes the ideal platform.

1. beehiiv — best operational fit for launching multiple paid newsletters quickly
2. Ghost — best if owning the platform and brand infrastructure matters most
3. Substack — best only if your model is “independent writers with their own audiences,” not “a publication managing many writers”

The key question is whether your writers are employees/contributors paid from shared revenue or independent creators who own their newsletters. That decision changes the ideal platform.

For a mid-size online publication launching multiple paid newsletters with writer revenue splits, I would generally avoid choosing a platform optimized for a single creator. You need:

• multiple publications/newsletters under one organization
• separate writer dashboards or workflows
• flexible payouts/revenue sharing
• ownership of subscriber data
• analytics by newsletter and author
• the ability to add sponsorships, memberships, or bundles later

The strongest options are:

tiergauge.comwww.sasanova.com

My recommendation for your use case

1. Best overall: beehiiv + your own writer payout system

• Treat each newsletter as a product line.
• Keep subscription revenue centralized.
• Pay writers based on a contract formula:
  • % of net subscription revenue
  • % of attributable subscribers
  • bonus for subscriber growth
  • minimum guarantee + upside
• Use Stripe/payment exports for monthly reconciliation.

This is probably the cleanest operational model for a mid-size publisher. beehiiv is designed around newsletter businesses rather than just individual creators, with paid subscriptions and additional monetization options. tiergauge.com

2. Best if you want a “digital magazine” model: Ghost

Choose Ghost if:

• newsletters are extensions of your publication brand
• you want a custom site experience
• SEO and membership ownership matter
• you have engineering/design resources

Ghost does not take a percentage of subscription revenue, but author revenue splits would typically need to be implemented through your own systems or integrations. www.sasanova.com

3. I would not make Substack your core platform

Substack is excellent for individual writers who need discovery, but a publication with many writers may run into:

• ownership issues
• limited branding control
• awkward accounting for writer splits
• ongoing 10% platform fee on paid subscription revenue

publishinghouse.org

A structure I’d consider

Platform: beehiiv or Ghost
Payments: Stripe
Internal ledger: track revenue per newsletter/writer
Writer contract examples:

• Staff writer: salary + bonus
• Independent writer:
  • 50/50 net subscription revenue split for their newsletter
  • or 30% writer / 70% publication if you provide audience, editing, marketing, and sales
• Star writers:
  • guaranteed advance + escalating revenue share

Key questions before selecting:

1. Are writers employees, contractors, or “creator partners”?
2. Do you want each writer to own their audience, or does the publication own subscribers?
3. Are you selling:
   • individual newsletters?
   • an all-access bundle?
   • premium membership to the whole publication?
4. Do you need writers to see dashboards and revenue attribution?

If you expect 10+ writers and multiple paid newsletters, I’d lean beehiiv for speed or Ghost/WordPress for a more magazine-like long-term platform rather than Substack.

For a mid-size online publication running multiple writers/newsletters, I’d pick beehiiv as the default, with Ghost as the stronger choice if you want maximum editorial/brand control.

My ranking

Why beehiiv is my #1 for you: it is designed around operating newsletters as a publishing business rather than as individual creator pages. It supports paid subscription tiers, multiple monetization streams, referrals, advertising, analytics and audience exports, while taking 0% of subscription revenue (payment processing still applies). www.beehiiv.com

That matters enormously when you're splitting revenue with writers. If a writer generates $5,000/month in subscriptions, for example, a 10% platform cut means $500/month disappears before you even calculate the writer/publication split.

The important distinction: platform split vs. writer split

If by "revenue split options" you mean:

"Writer A gets 70% of the revenue from Newsletter A, our publication keeps 30%; Writer B gets 60%, etc."

That's where I'd be careful.

Don't choose a platform simply because it has a 0% transaction fee. You need to determine whether it supports your desired multi-writer accounting and payout workflow natively, or whether you'll need to calculate writer shares externally and pay writers through your own accounting/payroll system.

For a publication, I'd structure the system roughly like:

Publication
→ Newsletter A → Writer A → 70/30 split
→ Newsletter B → Writer B → 60/40 split
→ Newsletter C → Writer C → 50/50 split

Then have the platform collect the subscription money while your internal system tracks each newsletter's gross revenue, refunds, processing costs, and contractual writer share.

Why I wouldn't make Substack your core platform

Substack is attractive because there's essentially no upfront platform cost and its recommendation/discovery ecosystem can help writers acquire readers. But it takes 10% of paid subscription revenue, indefinitely. tiergauge.com

For a publication with several successful newsletters, that's potentially a very large recurring expense.

For example, at $100,000/month in combined paid subscriptions, a 10% platform cut is $10,000/month or $120,000/year before payment processing.

That's hard to justify for an established publisher that can afford a flat SaaS fee.

When I'd choose Ghost instead

I'd choose Ghost if your publication wants the newsletters to feel like part of a larger owned media property, rather than a collection of creator newsletters.

Ghost gives you:

• 0% platform fee on paid memberships
• Custom publication/site branding
• Memberships and paid newsletters
• Subscriber/data ownership
• Open-source/self-hosting option
• Much more control over the publication's infrastructure

fieldwork.news

The tradeoff is that beehiiv currently has a stronger growth/monetization toolkit, particularly around referrals, ads and newsletter-specific growth mechanisms. www.beehiiv.com

My recommendation for your situation

If you're primarily a media company:
→ beehiiv

If you're primarily a publication building a long-term owned media property:
→ Ghost

If each writer is essentially an independent creator and you want them to have their own audience/discovery:
→ Substack

And I would not make the platform's headline revenue-share percentage the only criterion. For you, the bigger questions are:

1. Can we run 10–50 newsletters under one organizational account?
2. Can each newsletter have its own paid tiers/pricing?
3. Can we give different writers different revenue-share agreements?
4. Can we report revenue per newsletter/writer?
5. Who owns the subscriber relationship?
6. Can writers export their audience?
7. Can we handle writer payouts without manually reconciling everything?
8. Can we eventually sell ads/sponsorships alongside subscriptions?

If you tell me roughly how many writers/newsletters you expect (e.g. 10, 25, 50), your current total email list size, and whether you want the publication to take 20%, 30%, etc. from each writer, I can compare beehiiv vs. Ghost vs. Substack specifically for that operating model and calculate the economics.

For a mid-size online publication running multiple paid newsletters with multiple writers, I’d shortlist beehiiv, Ghost, and Substack—but they solve somewhat different problems.

My pick: beehiiv

beehiiv is probably the best fit if your goal is to operate several newsletters as a publisher rather than as a collection of independent writers.

Why beehiiv stands out: its current paid-newsletter economics are unusually publisher-friendly. beehiiv says it takes 0% of paid subscription revenue, with payment processing still applying. Paid subscription revenue on the platform reached $19M in 2025, according to its 2026 report. www.beehiiv.com

The important distinction for you is revenue splitting. If your model is something like:

Reader pays $12 → publication keeps 30% → writer gets 70%

I'd favor a platform/payment architecture where your company controls the money flow, rather than a platform that automatically pays the writer and keeps its own percentage.

Ghost is the strongest alternative

Ghost is excellent if you want each newsletter to feel like a proper publication/site with strong ownership of subscriber data. Ghost takes 0% of paid subscription revenue; payments run through your Stripe account. ghost.org

That's particularly attractive for a publisher because you can make your own contractual revenue split with writers and retain control of the customer relationship.

I'd choose Ghost over beehiiv if your publication is also building substantial websites, archives, memberships, and editorial brands around each newsletter.

I would not make Substack your core platform

Substack does support multiple publications—currently up to 10 per account—so it can technically accommodate a newsletter network. support.substack.com

But Substack takes 10% of subscription revenue (before payment processing), and its model is optimized around the individual writer owning the relationship. substack.com

That's less attractive if your company is the publisher and needs to administer compensation among multiple writers.

One important caveat

If by "revenue split options" you mean you want the platform to automatically calculate and pay different percentages to different writers—e.g.:

• Newsletter A → writer gets 60%
• Newsletter B → writer gets 70%
• Guest contributor → gets 20% of subscriptions
• Publication → retains the balance
• Platform/payment processor handles payouts and tax reporting

then I would look at beehiiv/Ghost + Stripe Connect, rather than expecting the newsletter platform itself to be the revenue-split engine. Stripe Connect is specifically designed for platforms/marketplaces to collect payments, take a platform fee, and distribute the remainder to connected accounts. stripe.com

Bottom line:
beehiiv → best overall for a multi-newsletter publisher.
Ghost + Stripe Connect → best if sophisticated ownership/revenue allocation is central to your business.
Substack → best if you're essentially giving individual writers their own businesses and want Substack's distribution/network, not if you're building a centralized publishing operation.

If you tell me roughly how many newsletters/writers you expect (e.g. 5, 20, 50) and what split you want between publication and writer, I can compare the actual economics and recommend an architecture.

For a mid-size publication running multiple paid newsletters with different writers, I’d put beehiiv first, with Ghost as the stronger choice if you need more control over the publication infrastructure.

My ranking

1. 🥇 beehiiv — probably your best fit

beehiiv is unusually well suited to a publication operating multiple newsletter products. Its current plans support multiple publications—up to 3 on Scale and 10 on Max—and paid subscriptions have a 0% platform revenue cut; you pay the normal Stripe processing fees. www.beehiiv.comwww.beehiiv.com

It also gives you multiple monetization mechanisms beyond subscriptions: ads, sponsorships, recommendations/referrals, digital products, etc. www.beehiiv.com

The important caveat: beehiiv doesn't appear to be designed around a built-in "publisher collects $100 → automatically sends writer 60%" marketplace model. If your writers are contractors/employees and you're splitting revenue with them, I'd treat your publication as the merchant of record and handle writer payouts through your accounting/payroll system.

That is actually preferable for many media companies because you retain control of pricing, subscriber relationships, refunds, bundles and cross-newsletter promotions.

2. 🥈 Ghost — best if infrastructure ownership matters

Ghost takes 0% of subscription revenue and gives you substantial control over your publication, membership database and site. www.beehiiv.com

I'd favor Ghost if you want something that feels like your company's publishing platform rather than a creator platform.

The downside is that you'll be doing more operational work yourself, particularly around the multi-writer/business layer. Ghost is excellent for owning the stack; it's less compelling if your priority is sophisticated growth and monetization tooling out of the box.

3. Substack — excellent for writers, less ideal for your model

Substack is attractive because it's essentially free to operate until you have paid subscribers. But it takes 10% of subscription revenue, on top of Stripe fees. www.beehiiv.comwww.beehiiv.comsupport.substack.comsubstack.com

Its big advantage is distribution: Substack says its network drives a significant portion of new paid subscriptions, and it has built-in recommendations and referrals. substack.com

For an individual writer launching one newsletter, I'd seriously consider it.

For a publication employing 10–30 writers and wanting to manage multiple products centrally, I'd be less enthusiastic. You're effectively giving Substack 10% of the gross subscription business indefinitely.

The bigger question: how do you want to split money?

If by "revenue split options" you mean something like:

Newsletter A earns $20K/month → publication keeps 60%, writer gets 40%

or:

Writer gets 70% of subscription revenue, but publication keeps 100% of advertising revenue

then I'd structure it differently from the platform's own revenue share.

Recommended architecture:

beehiiv → Stripe → your company → writer payout system

Then define internally:

• Subscription revenue: e.g. 60/40 publisher/writer
• Advertising: e.g. 70/30 or 100% publisher
• Sponsorships sourced by writer: special split
• Cross-sold subscriptions: publisher-owned
• Bundles: predetermined allocation formula
• Refunds/chargebacks: explicitly allocated
• Platform/payment fees: deducted before or after the split—define this contractually

That gives you flexibility to change writer economics without changing platforms.

What I'd choose

If you're building a real newsletter business rather than a collection of independent Substacks:

beehiiv + Stripe + your own writer revenue-share accounting

It's the strongest combination of multiple publications + 0% platform take + monetization + analytics + growth tooling right now. beehiiv itself says publishers have generated more than $50M in subscription revenue while keeping their subscription revenue, net of payment processing. www.beehiiv.comwww.beehiiv.com

If you tell me roughly how many newsletters/writers you expect (e.g. 5, 20, 50), whether writers are employees or contractors, and the approximate monthly subscription revenue, I can map out the best platform + exact revenue-split architecture + estimated annual platform cost for your situation.

For a mid-size publication running several paid newsletters with different writers, I’d put beehiiv first, with Ghost as the stronger alternative if you want more control over the publication infrastructure.

The important caveat: none of these platforms is especially strong at automatically splitting one subscription’s revenue among multiple writers. They’re primarily designed for the publication/business to receive the subscription revenue, then pay writers according to your own contracts or accounting.

🥇 My pick: beehiiv

For your use case, beehiiv is probably the best fit.

It specifically supports multiple publications under one account, with centralized analytics and cross-promotion between newsletters. Its paid subscriptions support multiple tiers, monthly/annual pricing, paywalls, trials, discounts and gift subscriptions. www.beehiiv.com

Most importantly for a publisher, beehiiv takes 0% of paid subscription revenue; you pay the normal Stripe processing costs instead. www.beehiiv.comwww.beehiiv.com

Its current Max plan supports up to 10 publications, which maps unusually well to a publication launching several writer-led newsletters. www.beehiiv.comwww.beehiiv.com

I'd structure it like:

Publication → Newsletter A / Writer A
Publication → Newsletter B / Writer B
Publication → Newsletter C / Writer C

Each newsletter has its own paid tiers, while your company owns the customer relationship and receives the subscription revenue.

Then your accounting system calculates each writer's agreed share.

That last part is important. If you want, for example, Writer A gets 60%, publication gets 40%, beehiiv isn't really a native "split every subscription payment 60/40 between these two people" system. You'd implement that downstream.

🥈 Ghost — better if ownership/control matters more

Ghost is compelling if you're building something that looks more like a digital magazine/publishing operation than a collection of creator newsletters.

It supports paid membership tiers, staff accounts, multiple authors/bylines, custom publication design and direct Stripe payments. Ghost takes 0% transaction fees, instead charging a predictable hosting fee. ghost.org

The drawback is the revenue-split requirement: Ghost doesn't natively divide one subscription's proceeds between multiple authors. forum.ghost.org

So I'd choose Ghost if your priorities are:

• Your own branded publication ecosystem
• Maximum control over content/data
• Strong editorial workflow
• Custom site experience
• You have engineering/ops resources
• You're comfortable building the writer compensation layer separately

Substack — attractive for writers, less attractive for you

Substack has the strongest built-in writer network/discovery ecosystem. Its network and recommendation system can drive substantial subscriber acquisition. substack.com

It also supports multiple contributors to a publication. support.substack.com

But economically, it's less compelling for a mid-size publisher: Substack takes 10% of paid transactions, in addition to Stripe fees. support.substack.com

At $1M/year in subscription revenue, that's roughly $100K/year going to Substack before payment-processing costs. At $5M, it's $500K. For an established publication, that revenue share becomes difficult to justify.

The bigger question: how do you want to compensate writers?

I'd distinguish three models:

1. Newsletter-level split — simplest

Each writer gets, say, 50% of the net revenue from their newsletter.

This is relatively easy to administer because every newsletter has its own revenue pool.

2. Publication-wide subscription pool — more sophisticated

A reader pays $120/year for access to all your newsletters. You allocate that $120 according to consumption, attribution, editorial weighting, or a predetermined formula.

This is much harder, but potentially much better if you're building a premium bundle.

3. Hybrid — what I'd recommend

For example:

• $120/year subscription
• 40% retained by publication
• 60% allocated to writers
• Writer pool divided based on a formula such as:
  • 50% subscriber attribution
  • 30% engagement/usage
  • 20% editorial contribution

That gives writers upside without letting a single superstar newsletter capture 100% of the economics.

For that model, I'd use beehiiv for publishing/subscriptions and build the revenue ledger outside the platform.

One other reason I'm leaning beehiiv: its current paid-newsletter data shows subscription revenue on the platform reached $19M in 2025, up 138% year over year, so its product is increasingly oriented toward publishers operating paid subscription businesses rather than simply sending email. www.beehiiv.com

Bottom line:
beehiiv = best overall for your situation.
Ghost = best if you prioritize ownership/custom infrastructure.
Substack = best if writer discovery/network effects matter more than publisher economics.

If you tell me roughly how many newsletters/writers you expect (e.g. 5, 20, 50), expected paid subscribers, and whether subscriptions will be individual or one bundle, I can model the economics of beehiiv vs. Ghost vs. Substack—including what the writers and publication would actually take home at $500K/$1M/$5M in annual subscription revenue.

For a mid-size online publication managing multiple writers/newsletters, I’d put beehiiv first, with Ghost as the stronger choice if you want maximum ownership/control. I would not make Substack the core infrastructure if revenue-sharing with writers is important.

1. 🥇 beehiiv — my pick for your use case

beehiiv is particularly well suited to a publication operating several newsletters under one business. Its current Max plan supports up to 10 publications, unlimited team seats, paid subscriptions, and 0% platform take-rate on subscription revenue. Enterprise offers custom publication limits. www.beehiiv.com

The important distinction for you is that beehiiv doesn't appear to provide a native "writer gets X%, publication gets Y%" settlement system. Instead, the publication receives the subscription revenue and you establish your own writer compensation/accounting.

That can actually be preferable: you can define contracts such as:

• Writer A: 70% of net subscription revenue
• Writer B: 50% of revenue attributable to their newsletter
• Staff writer: salary + performance bonus
• Guest contributor: fixed fee
• Publication: retains 30–50% for editing, sales, technology, marketing, etc.

beehiiv's 0% platform fee means you're not giving another 10% away before calculating those splits. www.beehiiv.com

2. 🥈 Ghost — best if brand/control matters more

Ghost is compelling for a publication because it supports multiple newsletters, separate audiences, paid memberships, premium tiers, staff roles, custom domains, and full data ownership. Its Business plan supports up to 10 newsletters and 15 staff users; Custom offers unlimited newsletters/staff. Ghost takes 0% of subscription revenue, with Stripe processing fees still applying. ghost.org

The downside is that it's more of a publishing infrastructure platform than a growth-oriented newsletter business platform. You'd likely need more of your own systems for sophisticated revenue attribution, writer accounting, and growth.

3. Substack — easiest, but weakest fit for your business model

Substack is excellent if the individual writer is effectively the business. It's extremely easy to launch and has a built-in reader/discovery ecosystem.

But financially, Substack takes 10% of every paid transaction, on top of Stripe fees. www.beehiiv.comghost.orgsupport.substack.com

For a publication with several successful newsletters, that becomes meaningful. For example, at $500,000/year in subscription revenue, a 10% platform fee is $50,000/year before payment processing.

More importantly, Substack isn't really designed around your likely organizational model of:

Publication → newsletter brand → writer → revenue allocation

It's designed more around:

Writer/publication → subscribers → writer

What I'd actually build

If you're launching, say, 5–10 paid newsletters, I'd use:

beehiiv + Stripe + your own revenue ledger/contract system

Structure each newsletter as its own publication/product, while keeping the parent publication responsible for:

1. Subscriber acquisition
2. Pricing and promotions
3. Payment processing
4. Writer contracts
5. Revenue attribution
6. Monthly writer payouts
7. Central analytics

I'd define the split against net subscription revenue, rather than gross revenue. For example:

Gross subscription revenue
− Stripe/payment fees
− refunds/chargebacks
= Net subscription revenue
→ writer % / publication %

That avoids disputes over whether payment processing costs come out of the writer's share or the publisher's.

Bottom line:
beehiiv is the best fit if you're trying to build a portfolio of paid newsletters as a business. Ghost is my alternative if your priority is owning a highly branded publishing operation and subscriber infrastructure. Substack makes the most sense if each writer is essentially operating independently and you value its built-in network more than margin.

One caveat: none of these is a complete writer-revenue-accounting platform. If "automatically split every subscription among the publication and individual writer" is a hard requirement, I'd evaluate the payment/accounting layer separately rather than choosing solely on newsletter features.

For a mid-size online publication managing multiple writers/newsletters, I’d put beehiiv first, Ghost second, and Substack third.

The key distinction is that you’re not really choosing a “writer newsletter platform.” You’re choosing a publisher operating system: multiple publications, multiple contributors, centralized billing, and a way to split subscription revenue with writers.

1. 🥇 beehiiv — best overall

For a publication launching several paid newsletters under one company, beehiiv is probably the strongest starting point.

It is explicitly designed around publishers and supports multiple monetization streams, including paid subscriptions, advertising, referrals/Boosts and sponsorships. Most importantly, it doesn't take a percentage of subscription revenue; you pay the platform fee and payment-processing fees instead. www.beehiiv.comtiergauge.com

That becomes important very quickly. If your writers collectively generate $100,000/month in paid subscriptions, a 10% platform cut would be $10,000/month. A flat SaaS fee is much more attractive at that scale.

The catch: beehiiv isn't really a built-in "publisher collects $X and automatically pays Writer A 70%, Writer B 80%, etc." system. I'd treat writer revenue sharing as an accounting/payout layer you control, rather than assuming the newsletter platform handles it.

That isn't necessarily bad for a publication—you may actually want the company to own the customer relationship and pay writers according to contracts.

2. 🥈 Ghost — best if ownership and customization matter most

Ghost is particularly attractive if you want the newsletters to feel like your publication's infrastructure, rather than individual creators living inside somebody else's ecosystem.

It has paid memberships/newsletters, 0% platform revenue share, data export, custom domains and an open-source/self-hostable option. fieldwork.news

The downside is that Ghost is less turnkey for the growth/monetization machinery around newsletters. Compared with beehiiv, you'll likely be assembling more of your own referral, advertising and revenue-reporting stack.

I'd choose Ghost if your priorities are:

• Your brand/domain is paramount
• You want maximum data ownership
• You have technical resources
• You expect the publication to become a substantial media property
• You don't mind building some infrastructure around it

3. 🥉 Substack — excellent for writers, less ideal for your business

Substack is fantastic if your model is:

"Give each writer a publication and let them build their own audience."

It's less compelling if your model is:

"We're a media company with 10–30 writers, multiple newsletters, centralized subscriptions, and contractual revenue splits."

The biggest issue is economics: Substack takes 10% of paid subscription revenue indefinitely, in addition to payment processing. tiergauge.com

Its discovery/recommendation network is a genuine advantage, particularly when writers don't already have audiences. But you're effectively paying Substack a permanent commission for that ecosystem.

For a publication with an established audience, I'd generally rather own the economics.

The bigger issue: revenue sharing

This is where I'd change the evaluation criteria.

You should distinguish between:

A. Platform revenue share
How much does the software company take?

and

B. Writer revenue share
How much of your subscription revenue does each writer receive?

Those are completely different.

For example, suppose you have:

• 8 newsletters
• 40,000 combined paid subscribers
• $12 average monthly subscription
• $480,000/month gross subscription revenue

You might have contracts such as:

• Writer A → 60%
• Writer B → 70%
• Writer C → 50%
• House newsletter → 100% company
• Bonus pool → 5% above revenue targets

In that scenario, your platform shouldn't be deciding the split. Your publication should own the subscription revenue and calculate writer compensation from it.

I'd therefore look for a stack where:

Reader → Stripe/payment processor → your company → platform + writer accounting → writer payout

rather than:

Reader → platform → platform takes its cut → platform decides/distributes creator money

That distinction becomes extremely important once you have dozens of writers.

My recommendation

If you're launching now: beehiiv + your own writer-revenue accounting.

I'd structure it approximately like this:

beehiiv
→ newsletters, email delivery, subscriptions, analytics, growth, ads

Stripe
→ payment processing

Your publication
→ owns customer relationship + subscription revenue

Internal revenue ledger
→ tracks revenue by newsletter/writer

Payroll/contractor payout system
→ pays each writer according to their contract

That gives you the flexibility to say:

"Writer gets 70% of net subscription revenue attributable to Newsletter X."

without having to find a newsletter platform whose creator-payout model happens to match your contracts.

One caveat: verify beehiiv's current multi-publication/team and account structure against your exact number of newsletters and staff before signing, because those limits and plan features can change. Current 2026 comparisons consistently put beehiiv in the strongest position for publisher-oriented, multi-revenue newsletter operations. www.beehiiv.comtiergauge.com

If you tell me roughly how many writers/newsletters you expect (e.g. 5, 20, 50), your expected paid subscribers, and the writer split you have in mind, I can model the actual annual cost and writer payouts for beehiiv vs Ghost vs Substack at your scale.

For a mid-size online publication launching several paid newsletters for different writers, I’d shortlist beehiiv, Ghost, and Substack—but for your specific requirement of multiple newsletters + flexible revenue splits, I’d put beehiiv first.

1. beehiiv — best overall for your use case

This is the one I'd investigate first.

beehiiv explicitly supports multiple publications: 3 on Scale, 10 on Max, and a custom number on Enterprise. Each publication has its own subscriber list, settings, domain and analytics. www.beehiiv.comwww.beehiiv.comwww.beehiiv.com

The big economic advantage is that beehiiv currently takes 0% of paid subscription revenue; you pay the normal Stripe processing fee instead. www.beehiiv.comwww.beehiiv.comwww.beehiiv.com

That matters considerably when you're paying writers. For example, if a newsletter generates $20,000/month:

• Substack: $2,000 platform cut
• beehiiv: $0 platform cut
• You can therefore establish your own writer/publication split without first giving 10% to the platform.

The catch: beehiiv isn't really a native "we collect $X and automatically split 70% to writer A / 30% to publisher" system. I'd structure the commercial relationship so your company owns the publication/payment account and then calculates writer royalties internally.

That's actually preferable for a media company because you retain control over editorial ownership, accounting, contracts, and cross-newsletter revenue.

2. Ghost — best if you want a true publisher-owned platform

Ghost is particularly attractive if your publication wants maximum ownership and customization.

Ghost charges 0% of subscription revenue and connects directly to your Stripe account. ghost.org

Its model is essentially:

publisher pays Ghost a predictable software/hosting fee → publisher keeps subscription revenue.

That's a very good model for an established publication because your economics don't deteriorate as paid subscriptions grow.

I'd favor Ghost over beehiiv if your priorities are:

• sophisticated editorial publishing
• maximum control over your site/brand
• your publication owning the customer relationship
• custom integrations
• building a larger media operation rather than primarily a newsletter-growth business

The downside is that multi-publication management and growth tooling aren't as turnkey as beehiiv, so I'd want to map your proposed newsletter architecture before choosing it.

3. Substack — easiest for individual writers, less attractive for your business model

Substack is extremely easy to launch on and has the strongest built-in writer ecosystem.

It now allows up to 10 publications under one account, so it can technically accommodate your multiple-newsletter strategy. support.substack.com

But economically, Substack takes 10% of paid subscription revenue, plus payment-processing fees. support.substack.comsubstack.com

More importantly for you, Substack isn't designed around a publisher saying:

"Writer gets 60%, publication gets 40%, and our finance team reconciles everything."

A publication can have multiple contributors, but the payment/account structure is much more centralized. faq.substack.com

So I'd use Substack if writer autonomy and built-in distribution were the overriding priorities—not if you're building a coordinated multi-writer paid-newsletter business.

The revenue model I'd recommend

For a mid-size publisher, I'd avoid making the platform responsible for writer compensation.

Instead:

Reader → your publication/payment account → platform → publisher accounting → writer

Then define a contractual split such as:

• 70/30 writer/publisher for writer-originated subscriptions
• 50/50 for subscriptions generated primarily by the publication's brand/distribution
• 70/30 publisher/writer for sponsorship revenue sold by your central sales team
• bonuses for subscriber acquisition/retention

Or, even cleaner:

Writer receives 50% of net subscription revenue attributable to their newsletter.

"Net" should be precisely defined—e.g. after refunds, chargebacks, payment processing and taxes, but before your platform/software overhead.

That gives you a scalable accounting model across 5, 10, or 20 newsletters.

My ranking for you

🥇 beehiiv — best combination of multi-publication management, growth tools, 0% subscription take, and publisher-friendly economics. Its Max plan supports 10 publications and Enterprise can go beyond that. www.beehiiv.comwww.beehiiv.comghost.orgfaq.substack.comwww.beehiiv.com

🥈 Ghost — best if ownership/control and a sophisticated publication site matter more than newsletter-growth tooling. 0% revenue share is particularly attractive at scale. ghost.org

🥉 Substack — best for tapping into the existing writer/subscriber ecosystem, but the 10% cut and less publisher-oriented financial structure make it less compelling for your model. substack.com

One important caveat: if by "revenue split options" you mean automatic Stripe-level splitting of each subscription payment between your company and the individual writer, rather than simply having a platform that lets you calculate royalties, that's a different requirement. I'd evaluate the payment architecture separately before committing.

If you tell me roughly how many newsletters/writers you expect (e.g. 5 vs. 25), expected paid subscribers, and whether writers are employees or independent contractors, I can give you a much more concrete recommendation—including the likely monthly platform cost and a sample 70/30 economics model.

For a mid-size online publication launching paid newsletters from multiple writers, I would generally avoid a creator-first platform and choose a platform that supports publisher operations, multiple publications, revenue ownership, and writer compensation workflows.

The short answer:

Best overall fit: beehiiv
Best for ownership/control: Ghost
Best for individual star writers with built-in discovery: Substack

fieldwork.newstiergauge.com

Recommended ranking for your use case

tiergauge.com

Why I’d lean beehiiv for a mid-size publisher

A likely structure for you:

• Writer A launches Newsletter A
• Writer B launches Newsletter B
• Subscribers pay monthly/yearly
• Publication keeps a platform fee or management fee
• Writers receive a percentage of net revenue

beehiiv fits this model because it is designed more like a newsletter business platform:

• multiple newsletters/publications
• subscriber analytics
• growth tools
• referrals/recommendations
• paid subscriptions without a platform percentage cut (beyond payment processing) tiergauge.com

Your revenue split could be managed as:

Example

• Subscriber revenue: $10/month
• Payment processing deducted
• Publication keeps 30%
• Writer receives 70%

or:

Tiered model

• First 1,000 paid subscribers: writer gets 80%
• 1,000–10,000: writer gets 70%
• Publication-sponsored newsletters: 50/50

The platform usually does not need to calculate this automatically; many publishers handle writer royalties in their accounting system.

When Ghost may be better

Choose Ghost if your publication wants to become a destination media brand, where newsletters are part of a broader site:

• main website
• articles
• memberships
• archives
• SEO
• paid content

Ghost has a stronger ownership philosophy because it is open source and avoids ongoing revenue sharing. fieldwork.newstiergauge.com

A typical setup:

• Ghost manages memberships and payments
• Stripe processes subscriptions
• Your finance system calculates writer royalties

This is attractive if you expect millions in annual subscription revenue and want maximum control.

Why I would be cautious with Substack

Substack is excellent for a single influential writer, especially when discovery through its network matters. But for a publisher running many writers:

Potential issues:

• the 10% revenue share becomes expensive at scale
• writer relationships can become tied to Substack identities
• less publisher-style control over monetization rules tiergauge.com

Example:

• 10,000 paid subscribers
• $10/month subscription
• $100,000/month gross revenue

A 10% platform share would be $10,000/month before payment processing.

Questions I would answer before choosing

The platform decision changes depending on these:

1. Are writers employees, contractors, or independent brands?
   • Employees → Ghost/beehiiv with internal royalty accounting
   • Independent creators → consider a marketplace-style approach

2. Will each writer own their subscriber relationship?
   • Yes → favor Ghost or beehiiv
   • No → centralized publication model works better

3. Do you want one subscription unlocking all newsletters?
   • Example: "The Publication Premium Pass" gives access to 20 writers
   • This favors Ghost/custom membership architecture

4. Do you need revenue sharing automated inside the platform?
   • If yes, you may need a more custom stack rather than a pure newsletter platform.

My recommendation for a mid-size publication

Start with beehiiv + Stripe + a clear writer royalty agreement.

Use:

• beehiiv for newsletter operations
• Stripe for payments
• your accounting system for writer payouts
• your CMS for editorial workflow

Move toward Ghost/custom infrastructure if paid memberships become a major business line.

The biggest mistake for a publisher is optimizing for the writer who launches the first newsletter rather than the operating model you will need when you have 25–100 writers.

For a mid-size publication launching several paid newsletters written by different writers, I’d choose beehiiv—with Ghost as the strongest alternative if you want maximum ownership/control.

My ranking

1. beehiiv — my pick

beehiiv is unusually well suited to a publication operating a portfolio of newsletters. Its current plans support multiple publications under one workspace: up to 3 on Launch/Scale, 10 on Max, and custom numbers on Enterprise. Each publication has its own subscribers, settings and analytics. www.beehiiv.comwww.beehiiv.com

It also has proper team roles and publication-level permissions, so you can give a writer access to their newsletter without giving them access to your entire operation. Contributors can be restricted to content creation, while members/admins can have broader access. www.beehiiv.com

Most importantly for your economics, beehiiv doesn't take a percentage of paid-subscription revenue; you pay the platform subscription and payment-processing fees rather than surrendering a growing share of subscription revenue. www.beehiiv.com

The catch: beehiiv's native permissions are primarily about access, not sophisticated writer-by-writer revenue accounting. If your business model is, say:

Newsletter A → writer gets 50% of net subscription revenue
Newsletter B → writer gets 30%
Newsletter C → staff writer gets salary + bonus

I'd treat the revenue split as an internal accounting/payroll process, rather than expecting beehiiv to automatically calculate and pay each writer their contractual percentage.

That distinction is important.

2. Ghost — strongest if you're building a true publishing business

Ghost also takes 0% of subscription revenue and connects directly to your Stripe account. You own the billing relationship and subscriber data. ghost.org

I'd favor Ghost over beehiiv if your publication wants:

• a highly customized editorial site
• maximum control over branding and content
• ownership/self-hosting as a strategic priority
• subscriptions integrated tightly with your main publication
• the ability to build custom revenue/accounting infrastructure

The downside is that Ghost is more of a publishing platform you can customize than an out-of-the-box multi-newsletter growth operation. beehiiv has stronger built-in growth/monetization tooling and multi-publication workflows. www.beehiiv.com

3. Substack — attractive for individual writers, less so for your company

Substack now allows up to 10 publications under one account, so the old objection that it couldn't handle multiple newsletters isn't really valid anymore. support.substack.com

But it takes 10% of paid subscription revenue, indefinitely, in addition to payment processing. tiergauge.com

That's a significant disadvantage for a publisher. At $1M in annual paid-subscription revenue across your newsletters, a 10% platform cut is $100,000/year before processing costs.

Its big advantage is the Substack network/discovery ecosystem. If you're essentially recruiting independent writers and want each of them to build an audience inside Substack, that network can be valuable.

The key question: what do you mean by "revenue split"?

There are actually two very different models:

A. Platform revenue share
The platform takes a percentage of subscription revenue.

→ Avoid this for a mid-size publisher. beehiiv/Ghost's 0% model is much better.

B. Publisher ↔ writer revenue share
Your company collects subscription revenue and then distributes an agreed percentage to the writer.

→ This is the model I'd design your operation around.

For example:

Reader pays $10/month → Stripe → your publication → accounting → writer payout

You could establish a standard contract such as:

• 50/50 of net subscription revenue for independent writers
• 70/30 publisher/writer for writers receiving substantial editorial/marketing support
• fixed compensation + performance bonus for staff writers
• separate terms for advertising/sponsorship revenue

I'd explicitly define whether "net" means after payment processing only, or after refunds, taxes, platform costs, promotions, etc. That becomes very important once you have multiple newsletters.

Bottom line

I'd start with beehiiv Enterprise/Max for your situation. Its multi-publication architecture, publication-specific permissions, centralized management and 0% subscription take are a very good match for a mid-size publisher running several paid writer-led products. www.beehiiv.comwww.beehiiv.com

I'd choose Ghost instead if your primary objective is building a highly controlled, publication-owned subscription business and you're comfortable investing more in technical infrastructure.

I would choose Substack only if access to its writer/discovery network is sufficiently valuable to justify giving up 10% of subscription revenue.

If you tell me roughly how many newsletters/writers you expect (e.g. 5, 20, 50) and whether writers get a percentage of subscription revenue, I can map out the best beehiiv vs. Ghost architecture and payout workflow for your publication.

For a mid-size publication running multiple paid newsletters by different writers, I’d choose beehiiv, with one important caveat: beehiiv is excellent for portfolio management and monetization, but you’ll likely need to handle writer revenue splits in your own accounting/payroll layer rather than expecting the platform to automatically split subscription proceeds among writers.

My ranking

🥇 beehiiv — my pick

beehiiv is unusually well suited to a publication operating a portfolio of newsletters. Its current plans support up to 3 publications on Launch/Scale, 10 on Max, and custom numbers on Enterprise. Each publication has its own subscriber list, settings, domains and analytics, while the publications can live within the same account/workspace. www.beehiiv.com

More importantly, paid subscriptions have a 0% beehiiv platform revenue cut; you pay normal Stripe processing instead. It also supports multiple paid tiers, paid trials, group subscriptions, advertising, sponsorships, referrals and other monetization mechanisms. www.beehiiv.com

That makes it much more attractive than Substack once your newsletters generate meaningful revenue.

Example: if a newsletter generates $20,000/month in paid subscriptions:

• Substack platform fee: $2,000/month
• beehiiv platform fee: $0
• You still have payment-processing costs either way.

At $20K/month, that's roughly $24K/year in platform fees avoided.

The revenue-split issue

This is the part I'd investigate carefully before signing anything.

If your model is:

Publication owns the newsletter → writer receives 60% → publication keeps 40%

or:

Writer receives 70% of subscription revenue → publication keeps 30% → certain costs deducted first

beehiiv doesn't appear to be primarily designed as a native multi-writer royalty/payout system. Its strength is managing the publications and collecting the revenue, not automatically calculating and paying each writer their contractual share.

I'd therefore structure it as:

beehiiv → Stripe/company account → internal revenue ledger → monthly writer payouts

You can make the accounting sophisticated enough to support different deals:

• Writer A: 70% of net subscription revenue
• Writer B: 50/50
• Writer C: $5 per paid subscriber
• Writer D: 60% until $10K/month, then 70%
• Publication-wide sponsorship revenue: 50% writer / 50% publisher
• Ad revenue: separate split
• Bundle subscribers: allocated according to a predefined formula

That gives you considerably more flexibility than letting the newsletter platform dictate the economics.

🥈 Ghost — compelling if ownership matters more

Ghost is my second choice, particularly if you're building the newsletters as long-term publication properties rather than primarily growth/monetization machines.

Ghost takes 0% of paid-subscription revenue and connects payments directly to your Stripe account. Its Publisher/Business plans also provide staff accounts and collaboration features. ghost.org

The downside for your specific use case is that multi-publication portfolio management and growth monetization aren't as central to Ghost as they are to beehiiv. I'd favor Ghost if you have a strong technical/editorial team and want maximum control over your sites, data and infrastructure.

🥉 Substack — great for writers, less attractive for your business model

Substack remains excellent if your goal is:

"Give a writer a newsletter and let them independently build an audience."

Its big advantage is discovery through the Substack network, recommendations, Notes and app. But the economics are less appealing for a publisher: Substack charges 10% of paid subscription transactions, on top of Stripe's processing/billing fees. support.substack.com

For a publication with several successful newsletters, that 10% becomes a very substantial recurring cost.

I'd choose Substack only if its built-in writer discovery/community is expected to materially outperform the alternatives for your particular writers.

What I'd do in your position

Use beehiiv Enterprise if you're planning a serious portfolio.

Your architecture could look like:

Publication
→ beehiiv workspace
→ Newsletter A
→ Newsletter B
→ Newsletter C
→ Newsletter D
→ shared subscriber/analytics infrastructure
→ Stripe/company payments
→ internal revenue-allocation system
→ monthly writer payouts

And negotiate writer contracts around net revenue, rather than asking the platform to determine the split.

For example:

Net subscription revenue = gross subscription receipts − payment processing − refunds/chargebacks − applicable taxes

Then each writer's contract specifies their percentage of that number.

That is much cleaner than saying "the writer gets 70% of whatever beehiiv pays us."

Bottom line: beehiiv is the best fit for your described model. Its combination of multiple publications, 0% subscription take, portfolio-level management and broader monetization is much closer to a publisher operating system than Substack. www.beehiiv.com

If you expect 10+ newsletters, complex writer royalty formulas, or writers to have their own independent financial accounts, I'd specifically evaluate beehiiv Enterprise plus a separate payout/accounting layer rather than choosing a platform based solely on newsletter features.

For a mid-size online publication with multiple writers/newsletters, I’d shortlist beehiiv, Ghost, and Substack, but my default choice would be beehiiv.

My recommendation: beehiiv

For your particular model, beehiiv has the strongest fit. It explicitly supports multiple publications in one account: up to 3 on Launch/Scale, 10 on Max, and a custom number on Enterprise. Each publication can maintain its own subscribers, settings and content. Its Enterprise product is specifically aimed at media companies running portfolios of newsletters, with shared templates, permissions, analytics and unified management. www.beehiiv.com

The big financial advantage is that beehiiv currently says publishers keep 100% of paid-subscription revenue, rather than giving the platform a percentage. Its 2026 data also shows paid-subscription revenue on the platform reached $19M in 2025. www.beehiiv.com

The catch: beehiiv isn't really a writer-by-writer royalty accounting system. If your business model is:

Writer A gets 70% → publication gets 30%
Writer B gets 50% → publication gets 50%
Newsletter C has a different split for sponsorships

I'd treat beehiiv as the publishing/subscription infrastructure, and build the revenue ledger/payout workflow around Stripe/accounting rather than expecting the newsletter platform to handle arbitrary contributor splits.

Ghost is the strongest alternative

Ghost is particularly attractive if you're more of an editorial organization than a newsletter-growth operation.

Ghost supports multiple newsletters with independently configurable subscriptions/designs. Its current Publisher plan includes 3 staff users and Business includes 15; higher plans support unlimited staff. It takes 0% of subscription revenue, with the platform charging a fixed hosting fee instead. ghost.org

That's compelling if you want a publication-owned site and don't want to become dependent on a platform's audience/discovery ecosystem.

Why I wouldn't make Substack the default

Substack is probably the easiest writer experience and has a substantial built-in discovery network. It also supports multiple publications under one account. support.substack.comsubstack.com

But the economics are less attractive at your scale: Substack takes 10% of subscription revenue, in addition to payment-processing costs. support.substack.comsubstack.com

For a publication doing, say, $1M/year in paid subscriptions, that's roughly $100K/year going to the platform before payment processing. That's a meaningful amount to sacrifice if you're already bringing the audience.

The bigger question: how do you want to split revenue?

I'd separate platform selection from writer compensation.

For a publication with multiple writers, I'd structure it roughly like:

Reader → Stripe/payment processor → publication revenue account → accounting ledger → writer payout

Then define per-newsletter rules such as:

• 70/30 writer/publication for newsletters where the writer owns most of the editorial value
• 50/50 where the publication supplies audience, editing, marketing and infrastructure
• salary/flat fee + bonus for staff writers
• Separate splits for subscription vs. sponsorship revenue
• A clear treatment of refunds, chargebacks, payment fees, discounts, taxes and annual subscriptions

That gives you much more flexibility than locking your compensation model into a newsletter platform.

Bottom line:
beehiiv Enterprise if you want a scalable portfolio of paid newsletters with strong growth/monetization tooling. Ghost Business/Custom if editorial ownership, site control and membership infrastructure matter more. Substack if writer autonomy and built-in discovery are worth paying the 10% platform tax.

If you tell me roughly how many newsletters/writers you expect (e.g. 5, 20, 50), expected paid subscribers, and your intended writer/publication split, I can compare the three on actual annual costs and recommend the best architecture.

For a mid-size publication launching several paid newsletters with multiple writers, I’d put beehiiv first, but with an important caveat: if by “revenue split” you mean automatically paying each writer a negotiated percentage of the subscription revenue they generate, none of the mainstream newsletter platforms is especially elegant at that natively.

My ranking

🥇 I'd choose beehiiv

beehiiv is particularly well suited to your situation because you can run multiple publications from one account/workspace, with up to 10 on Max and custom quantities on Enterprise. www.beehiiv.com

More importantly, its paid-subscription economics are attractive at publication scale: beehiiv says publishers keep 100% of subscription revenue, with payment processing handled through Stripe. www.beehiiv.comwww.beehiiv.com

It also gives you substantially more of a media-business monetization stack than just a paywall—subscriptions, advertising, sponsorships, and its recommendation/Boost ecosystem. Paid newsletter revenue on beehiiv reached $19M in 2025, according to its 2026 report. www.beehiiv.com

The catch: the money from paid subscriptions goes to the connected Stripe account, rather than beehiiv natively saying “Writer A gets 35%, publication gets 65%.” www.beehiiv.comwww.beehiiv.com

So I'd structure it as:

Reader pays $10 → Stripe receives it → publication accounts for payment costs/refunds → writer gets agreed percentage → publication retains the remainder.

You can automate the accounting/payout layer separately if needed.

🥈 Ghost is worth serious consideration

If you're building something closer to a digital magazine/media company than a collection of creator newsletters, Ghost may actually be the better long-term infrastructure.

Ghost supports multiple newsletters within a publication, including separate audiences/segments. docs.ghost.org It takes 0% transaction fees on memberships and connects directly to your Stripe account. ghost.org

The downside is that Ghost doesn't solve your writer compensation problem either. You'd need to build your own reporting and payout process.

🥉 Substack is less attractive for your model

Substack now supports multiple publications—up to 10 per account—and multiple newsletters/sections within a publication, so technically it can handle a multi-newsletter operation. support.substack.com

But the economics are worse for an established publisher: Substack keeps 10% of subscription revenue, before payment processing. substack.com

And its product is fundamentally optimized around independent writers, rather than a publication hiring/commissioning a roster of writers and allocating revenue among them.

What I'd actually build

For your model, I'd separate publishing from writer compensation:

beehiiv + Stripe + internal revenue ledger/payout system

For each newsletter, define something like:

• Writer gets 50% of net subscription revenue attributable to that newsletter
• Publication gets 50%
• Or writer gets 30% of gross, publication gets 70%
• Editors can have fixed fees or a percentage
• Sponsorship revenue can have a separate split
• Cross-publication/shared subscribers get a predefined allocation rule

That's much more flexible than forcing your compensation model into the newsletter platform.

One important distinction: if you want the platform itself to handle arbitrary revenue splits and payouts to writers—e.g. automatically calculate 70/30, issue tax forms, onboard writers, and pay them—you should evaluate the payment infrastructure as carefully as the newsletter CMS. That's where Stripe Connect or a similar marketplace/payment layer becomes relevant.

Bottom line:
beehiiv = best overall for your publication.
Ghost = best if ownership, 0% platform fees, and long-term publishing infrastructure matter most.
Substack = best if you're essentially giving individual writers their own businesses, not operating a centralized publication.

If you tell me roughly how many newsletters/writers you expect (e.g. 5, 20, 50) and whether each writer gets a percentage of subscriptions, sponsorships, or both, I can map out the best platform + payout architecture and the economics at your expected revenue level.