Top-earning batteries in the NEM are increasingly being set apart by optimisation and bidding strategy. Bidding strategies are shaped by each owner’s commercial position, portfolio needs, asset size, location and appetite for price risk. These factors influence whether an asset bids for regular dispatch through the evening peak, preserves capacity for scarcity events, or protects output when constraints bind.

Between January and April 2026, the top battery in each region captured 1.4-3× the share of available revenue as the bottom battery in the same region. On a 100 MW asset, this gap can leave millions of dollars on the table each year. Strategy is part of the gap, but execution within strategy, asset size, region and contract structure all contribute.

This article categorises 34 NEM batteries into four overarching bidding strategies. It looks at how each strategy operates, which owners use them, and how execution separates the top earners from the rest.

Executive summary

• Trading strategy created a capture-rate gap of up to 3× within the same region. The gap was largest in Victoria, followed by South Australia, New South Wales and Queensland.
• The fleet splits into four bidding strategies. Cap parkers, constrained batteries, volume bidders and ladder bidders each reflect different asset and commercial positions.
• Volume bidding has become the main strategy for new merchant capacity. Of the 3.3 GW commissioned in 2025, around 2.3 GW used a sub-$300/MWh volume profile.
• Execution separates assets using the same strategy. Top earners in the volume and ladder groups captured 2-3× the rate of the lowest earners.

Four bidding strategies explain operator behaviour

Bidding behaviour across the battery fleet can be categorised into four groups. These groupings reflect the operating context behind each asset, including asset size, location, contract exposure and risk appetite.

Most battery assets in the NEM follow one of four bidding strategies.