is a wealthy dating site visited by 65,240 people/month.

These people visit 308,146 times/month at an average of 12:48 minutes/visit.

The majority are Female, 18-34 Years Old, Caucasian with a College Education and a Household Income of $100k Plus per Year.

On, your gender odds are 0.69 men/woman (or 1.44 women/man).

Updated on 2008/11/16.

Average Rating


(30 votes, average: 3.00 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

(Click a star to add your rating of!)


Item Value
Sources: View Tabs for Details
Subscription Price $39.95/Month
People 65,240 People/Month
Gender 59% Female
Age 40% 18-34 Years of Age
Household Income 54% $100k Plus per Year


Web Statistics's People/Month Graph from Compete

Metric Value
Source: Compete
People/Month 65,240 People/Month
Growth/Year -12.4%
Visits/Month 308,146 Visits/Month
Stay/Visit 12:48 Minutes/Visit
Pages/Visit 19.3 Pages/Visit



Gender Percent
Male 41% Male 41%
Female 59% Female 59%


Age Percent
Under 17 2% Under 17 2%
18-34 40% 18-34 40%
35-49 39% 35-49 39%
50+ 19% 50+ 19%


Household Income Percent
$30k or Less 13% $30k or Less 13%
$30-60k 17% $30-60k 17%
$60-100k 16% $60-100k 16%
$100k or More 54% $100k or More 54%


Ethnicity Percent
Caucasian 77% Caucasian 77%
African American 11% African American 11%
Asian 3% Asian 3%
Hispanic 6% Hispanic 6%
Other 2% Other 2%


Education Percent
No College 37% No College 37%
College 48% College 48%
Grad School 15% Grad School 15%

Children in Household Percent
Source: Quantcast
No 72% No 72%
Yes 28% Yes 28%



Item Cost
People/Dollar: Monthly People / Monthly Cost
Cost per Month $39.95/Month
People/Dollar 1,633 People/Dollar
Cost per Year $179.95/Year
People/Dollar 4,351 People/Dollar
Free Trial Yes
Limitations Communication and Search Limited

Note: Please confirm prices directly with dating service provider.

Website Website (Direct Link)


Compare with other dating sites by the following criteria:

Age | Education | Ethnicity | Gender | Income | Price | User Rating | Web Stats


Please share your experiences in the comments below…

Comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Comment (1)

  1. Steve wrote::

    The Good profiles had excellent photo albums. Photos were decent size, high quality, easy to navigate and loaded quickly. The entire photo album was viewable during the free trial (many dating sites require paid subscription to view additional photos).

    Search seemed robust (but most advanced search options required upgrade to paid subscription).

    Search results showed many attractive profiles in my area.

    The site was uncluttered for the most part and had no banner ads (which was nice).

    “No ads” seems like a “no-brainer” to me for paid (subscription based) dating sites. It is surprising (and sad) to see so many paid dating sites using flashing banner ads so no banner ads is always refreshing.

    The Bad

    There was room for improvement in the navigation.

    The big buttons on the top and bottom navigation bars were for pages I would rarely use (help, contact, affiliate, partners, etc.). The site would be much more pleasant to navigate if the biggest, most prominent buttons were those I would use daily and often (especially search profiles and my favorites).

    Paid membership was required to use advanced search options.

    The fact that a paid membership was required to view “last logged in” information on every profile was most troubling.

    Were the nice profiles in my area still active? Did they last log in months or years ago?

    Without this information, the search results in the free trial had little value and it was difficult to make a purchase decision.

    The Beautiful

    Of all the “wealthy” dating sites, this one impressed me the most so far.

    First off, they did not hide their prices. Unlike most dating sites, I did not need to register to view pricing information. This openness was a refreshing change in the online dating industry and is always welcome.

    More importantly, our demographic data led me to believe that this site may be the real deal as far as wealthy sites go. It had the lowest percent of visitors from all the lower income brackets (under $30k, $20-60k and $60-100k) and the highest percent of visitors in the $100k plus income bracket.

    Forty-five percent (45%) of all visitors to MillionaireMatch had a household income of over $100k/year.

    In comparison, had 37%, 29% and only 27%. lets member prove their net worth by sending the site their W2 forms. Members can also opt to verify their occupation, age and photo.

    In terms of web statistics, had the longest stay per visit of all wealthy sites (average of 13:36 minutes per visit as opposed to 10:45, 04:54 and 00:54 for competing sites).


    An article in Forbes mentioned that actor Charlie Sheen was a member in 2006.

    Worth Visiting?


    Worth Subscribing?

    Sadly, I will have to reserve judgement for now. They were open with their prices (something I appreciate a lot) and had very good visitor demographics and site profiles. Unfortunately, not being able to see “last logged in” information made it difficult to make a purchase decision or recommendation.

    Tuesday, June 10, 2008 at 5:23 pm #
Post a Comment