Comparing Annual Earnings: Two Very Different Careers
The question of Vikkstar vs Miley Cyrus annual salary difference comes up occasionally in creator economy discussions, and the answer is pretty stark. Let me walk through how you actually calculate this, what the numbers look like, and the complications that come up when you try to pin down real figures. First, let's establish what we're working with. Benjamin (Vikkstar) is a UK-based YouTuber and streamer who built his career around Minecraft content. Miley Cyrus is a major pop artist and actress with decades of mainstream income streams. The gap between them is not subtle. Based on available public data from sources like Forbes, SocialBlade, and talent agency disclosures, Miley Cyrus's annual earnings sit in the range of $20 million to $30 million in a strong year. This includes music sales and streaming royalties, touring revenue, brand endorsement deals, and acting income. Her Endless Summer Vacation Tour alone was reported to generate well over $10 million in gross ticket sales. Recent Forbes estimates place her 2024 earnings around $24 million.
Vikkstar's annual income is substantially lower but still significant within the content creator space. His estimated yearly earnings range from approximately $1.5 million to $3 million. This comes from YouTube ad revenue, Twitch subscriptions and donations, brand sponsorships, and merchandise sales. His channel has accumulated over a billion views across his catalog, and his Twitch presence provides recurring monthly income. SocialBlade projections typically land in this range, though actual figures could vary depending on sponsorship deals that aren't publicly disclosed. The Vikkstar vs Miley Cyrus annual salary difference, then, comes out to roughly $17 million to $28 million per year depending on which year and which estimate you reference. Miley Cyrus earns somewhere between 8 and 16 times what Vikkstar earns annually. Now, here's where it gets complicated. I've spent time building salary comparison spreadsheets for creator clients, and the biggest problem isn't finding the numbers — it's that both of these figures are estimates derived from different methodologies.
YouTube revenue estimates from tools like SocialBlade operate on a formula that applies a broad average CPM rate to view counts. The actual CPM for a gaming channel like Vikkstar's can vary wildly — it might be $2 per mille in one month and $8 in another, depending on advertiser demand, audience geography, and seasonal trends. UK-based advertisers pay different rates than US-based ones. I learned this the hard way when I built a projection model for a mid-tier creator and the actual income came in 40 percent below my estimate. The workaround was to pull three separate data sources — SocialBlade, Noxinfluencer, and direct platform analytics where accessible — and use the lowest consistent figure as a baseline, then add a 15 to 20 percent margin for undisclosed sponsorship deals. It's never perfect, but it's more honest than picking the highest number and presenting it as fact. Miley Cyrus's income adds another layer of difficulty. A significant chunk of her earnings comes from touring, and touring revenue is lumpy. She might make $30 million in a year she's on tour and $8 million in a year she's not. Record deals and publishing royalties provide more stable income but are buried in private contracts. Forbes does its own calculations using IRS filings and industry contacts, but those numbers are still estimates dressed up with authoritative language. There's also the question of what you're actually comparing. Miley Cyrus has multiple income streams operating at a scale that doesn't have a direct parallel in the creator economy. She has a recorded music catalog that generates royalties every time her songs are played — on radio, in films, in commercials, on streaming platforms. She has acting residuals from Hannah Montana that continue paying. She has endorsement contracts, likely worth several million annually, with brands like Diet Coke and CoverGirl at various points in her career. Vikkstar's income is primarily performance-based: ad revenue, subscriptions, sponsorships, and merchandise. Neither has traditional salary structures. Both are business owners with variable annual cash flow.
Get the Full Details
One thing people often miss when making these comparisons is currency and tax. Vikkstar earns in British pounds and pays UK income tax, which tops out at 45 percent for high earners. Miley Cyrus earns in dollars and pays US federal tax, which similarly has a top bracket around 37 percent, plus state taxes that vary by where she files. Comparing pre-tax figures is standard practice but slightly misleading. The take-home difference is somewhat smaller than the gross numbers suggest, though still enormous. If you're doing this kind of comparison for a presentation or article, here's the practical approach I use. Get the most recent Forbes Celebrity 100 list for the musician — they publish annual rankings with estimated pre-tax income. For the YouTuber, pull the latest SocialBlade monthly stats, project annually by multiplying by 12, then cross-reference with any on-record interview statements about earnings. Convert GBP to USD at the current exchange rate, noting the date of conversion. Present a range, not a single number. And explicitly state that both figures are estimates. The bottom line on the Vikkstar vs Miley Cyrus annual salary difference is that it reflects two fundamentally different models of earning money in entertainment. One is built on mass-market celebrity with traditional industry infrastructure behind it. The other is built on direct audience relationship through digital platforms. Neither is inherently better or worse, but the revenue scales they operate at are worlds apart. Miley Cyrus's annual income is in the tens of millions. Vikkstar's is in the low millions at most. The difference is somewhere in the neighborhood of $20 million per year, give or take depending on tour cycles and sponsorship seasons.
That's the reality of the numbers. The methodology behind them is messy, the sources are imperfect, and any single figure you find online is someone's best guess dressed in a spreadsheet. But the order-of-magnitude gap is real and consistent across every source I've checked.
