Published on: September 18, 2025, 12:24h.
Updated on: September 18, 2025, 12:42h.
- Kalshi offers superior odds compared to DraftKings in select NFL markets
- New research highlights Kalshi’s pricing edge after analysts noted its slower start against competing sportsbooks in week one
- Kalshi’s advantages vary by specific games rather than being consistent across the entire NFL schedule
Kalshi, a leader in prediction markets, is making notable progress in NFL pricing, which may pose challenges for established sportsbooks such as DraftKings (NASDAQ: DKNG).
According to a report released on Tuesday by Edwin Dorsey, founder and editor of The Bear Cave newsletter, he invested $49.95 to acquire 115 “yes” contracts on the Tampa Bay Buccaneers for “Monday Night Football” at 43 cents per contract, in addition to a 50-cent fee to Kalshi. He also placed a $50 moneyline bet on DraftKings for the Buccaneers. After Tampa Bay’s victory, he earned $115 from Kalshi and $107 from DraftKings. Dorsey also assessed the pricing on both platforms for the NFL games scheduled for this Sunday.
In his Tuesday evening review, Dorsey found that Kalshi frequently provided better pricing for the upcoming Sunday NFL games compared to DraftKings. For instance, when betting on the Kansas City Chiefs against the New York Giants, DraftKings would yield $157.50 for a $50 bet on the Giants as underdogs, while Kalshi’s market offered $170, fees included, for the same wager,” says The Bear Cave Editor.
Dorsey does not engage in short selling and avoids taking financial positions in stocks mentioned in his newsletter. While the DraftKings/Kalshi analysis lacked overtly negative remarks regarding the sportsbook operator, it did highlight that Kalshi’s strategy toward football parlays and player propositions could potentially threaten DraftKings, as these types of bets are typically lucrative for gaming businesses.
Kalshi’s Progressive NFL Pricing
In a brief correspondence with Casino.org, Dorsey stated that his evaluation of DraftKings versus Kalshi was based on the odds available in New York City, which is significant as it represents the largest sports betting market in the United States.
Casino.org inquired whether Dorsey’s analysis was limited to underdog betting (as the cited examples did not include favorites), to which he responded that anecdotal evidence suggests Kalshi offers competitive pricing on favorites as well — particularly relevant given that many casual bettors tend to favor favorites over underdogs.
Research from The Bear Cave deserves attention for another reason: it was published just ten days following a sell-side analyst’s commentary suggesting that, in week one of the NFL season, DraftKings and FanDuel provided better pricing than Kalshi. This indicates that in a short period, Kalshi is enhancing its NFL pricing, thereby improving competition with established sportsbooks.
“The Bear Cave anticipates that Kalshi’s value will increase over time, as its transaction fees may decrease as the platform evolves. Furthermore, the platform is investigating sub-penny pricing, which could create narrower bid-ask spreads,” Dorsey mentioned in his report.
DraftKings Still Holds Potential
As the most popular sport for betting in the US, evidence suggests that the initial weeks of the 2025 NFL season have not been favorable for sportsbooks. However, companies like DraftKings continue to be viable, if not superior, competitors against entities like Kalshi.
In Dorsey’s analysis of 14 NFL games on Sunday, September 21, he found Kalshi had a pricing edge in eight games, compared to six for DraftKings. He also noted that a recent premade NFL parlay on Kalshi drew only $12,000 in trading volume.
The challenge with parlays in prediction markets lies in the necessity for the counterparty to provide a substantial amount of capital for relatively modest payouts,” he observes.
Recently, Kalshi has faced criticism for enabling high-rollers and institutional investors to trade without fees while imposing charges on smaller bettors. Furthermore, there are concerns that the firm’s market-making unit may be competing against retail clients, potentially disadvantaging those participants.