How Much Do Clippers Make on YouTube?

Have you ever wondered how much money YouTube clippers actually earn by cutting long videos into short, shareable moments? With the rise of the best AI podcast clip generator tools, more people are turning podcast episodes and long-form content into bite-sized clips that rack up views and generate real income. This article breaks down the numbers behind clipper earnings so you can understand what is actually possible in this space.

If you want to start clipping and earning faster, Crayo's clip creator tool gives you a practical edge by automating the process of turning raw footage into polished, ready-to-post clips. Instead of spending hours editing, you can focus on finding the right content and growing your channel revenue through ad earnings, sponsorships, and channel monetization opportunities that experienced clippers are already tapping into.

Table of Contents

• Why YouTube Clipping Income Is Hard to Predict
• The Hidden Cost of Chasing Views Without a Payment Plan
• 6 Ways to Earn Money as a YouTube Clipper
• The 30-Minute Workflow to Evaluate a YouTube Clipping Job
• Build a Repeatable, Permission-First Clipping Workflow With Crayo

Summary

• Short-form video content generates 1,200% more shares than text and images combined, which explains why demand for clip editing services has grown steadily. But market demand does not automatically translate into personal income. The gap between a growing industry and individual earnings closes only when a clipper has a signed agreement, a defined deliverable, and a payment schedule that does not depend on viral outcomes.
• YouTube clipping income runs through three distinct payment systems that have almost nothing in common. A service editor paid per accepted clip earns a fixed amount regardless of view counts. A performance clipper earns based on qualifying views that meet specific campaign conditions. A channel owner earns through ad RPM, which varies by niche, audience geography, and seasonal advertiser demand.
• The most common misread in clipper income is treating visible view counts as revenue. Every campaign, contract, and platform monetization program defines qualifying metrics differently, and the number shown on a video rarely triggers payment. A clip with 500,000 views can generate zero dollars if it fails a reused-content review, misses a campaign submission window, or does not meet a minimum payout threshold.
• Platform monetization adds a separate layer of eligibility requirements that rights clearance does not resolve. YouTube's Partner Program has historically required 1,000 subscribers plus either 4,000 valid public watch hours within 12 months or 10 million valid public Shorts views within 90 days. Critically, rights-holder approval does not automatically unlock ad revenue.
• Evaluating a clipping opportunity before production begins is the decision that most directly affects whether work converts to income. The key questions aren't creative. They are: who authorized the source material in writing, who is contractually obligated to pay, what are the exact deliverables, and does the estimated time (including sourcing, revisions, and communication, not just editing) produce an acceptable hourly return. A mental checklist cannot reliably catch edge cases, such as hidden quality-rejection clauses or campaign caps, that quietly reduce what the arithmetic initially suggests.
• The clippers who earn the most consistently tend to share one habit: they confirm payment terms before the video goes live, not after. Gross income figures without context, including rejected clips, revision hours, software costs, and sourcing time, are not income data. Top YouTube clippers can earn $500 to $5,000 per month according to creator economy reports, but that range reflects creators who have built original channels with established audiences and documented business frameworks, not clippers reuploading third-party content and counting views.

Crayo's clip creator tool fits into this workflow at the production stage, where compressing the time spent on formatting, captions, and export directly improves the hourly return on projects that already have confirmed rights and a contractually obligated payer.

Why YouTube Clipping Income Is Hard to Predict

YouTube clipping income does not follow a single formula. A clipper's earnings depend on three variables that rarely move together: who is paying them, what legal arrangement covers the footage, and whether the platform considers the output eligible for monetization at all. Get one wrong, and a clip with 500,000 views can generate exactly zero dollars. The failure point is usually misreading what "views" actually represent in financial terms. Views are an audience metric. They only become income when a specific mechanism converts them:

• An approved campaign paying per qualifying view
• A client contract covering accepted deliverables
• YouTube's own ad revenue system activating on an eligible channel

According to YouTube's official monetization documentation, channels using reused content face additional review scrutiny at the channel level, meaning permission from a rights holder does not automatically unlock ad revenue. Those are two separate gates.

What the Numbers Actually Look Like

To make this concrete without overstating it, consider a performance campaign paying an illustrative rate of $1.25 per 1,000 qualifying views.

• At 100,000 approved views, gross campaign pay reaches $125.
• At 1,000,000 views, it reaches $1,250.

But the operative word is "qualifying." Campaign managers routinely exclude traffic from certain regions, views generated within the first 24 hours, or views on posts that miss a submission deadline. The formula is simple: gross campaign pay equals qualifying views divided by 1,000, multiplied by the agreed rate. What makes it complicated is every condition that determines which views qualify.

Improving Hourly Rates by Reducing Production Costs

Most clippers handle this by tracking total public view counts and assuming the math will work out. That assumption breaks down the moment a campaign cap kicks in, a batch of clips gets rejected for audio quality, or a payout threshold is not met before a deadline passes.

Crayo's clip creator tool reduces this friction by accelerating production, so clippers spend less unbillable time editing and more time on clips that meet submission standards. When your cost per clip drops, the effective hourly rate on approved work improves even if the campaign rate stays flat.

Three Clippers, Three Completely Different Income Systems

The pattern repeats across every niche: two clippers with identical view counts can have wildly different bank balances because they operate under different payment structures.

• A service editor paid $40 per accepted clip earns $200 for five approved clips regardless of whether those clips reach 10,000 or 10 million views.
• A performance clipper earning $1.25 per 1,000 qualifying views needs 160,000 approved views to match that same $200.
• A channel owner running eligible YouTube monetization earns through ad RPM, which varies by niche, audience geography, and seasonal advertiser demand in ways that no single rate can capture.

These are not variations of the same system. They are three separate businesses that happen to use the same platform.

Gross Income vs. Net Reality

What most people skip when comparing clipper income claims is the accounting layer underneath the gross number. A screenshot showing $1,250 in campaign earnings might represent one month of consistent output or one lucky viral clip that will never repeat. It might cover a single account or a team of three. It almost certainly excludes rejected clips, revision hours, software subscriptions, and the sourcing time spent finding footage worth clipping in the first place. Gross figures without that context are not income data. They are marketing material. And here is what makes this more unsettling than it first appears: the clippers earning the most are not always the ones with the highest view counts.

Related Reading

• Webinar To Short Clips AI

• How Long Does It Take To Trim A Zoom Recording

• Repurpose Webinar Content

• Video Clipping For Social Media

• Clipping A YouTube Video

• Podcast Clips For Social Media

• How Do I Repurpose My Interview To Social Media

• Content Repurposing Examples

• Sermon Clips AI

• What Is An Audiogram Podcast

• Can You Trim The Middle Of A Zoom Recording

The Hidden Cost of Chasing Views Without a Payment Plan

The clippers earning the most tend to have something in common: they got paid before the video went live, not because of what happened after. That distinction matters more than any view count milestone. The hidden cost of chasing views without a confirmed payment structure is not just lost money. It is lost time you can't recover, spent on footage you may not have the right to use, edited into clips that may never qualify for a single dollar of platform revenue.

What the Math Actually Looks Like

Take a concrete example. You spend 45 minutes on each of ten clips, sourcing footage, cutting, captioning, and exporting. That is 7.5 hours of real work. If none of those clips pass a reused-content review, meet a campaign's qualifying view threshold, or come with a client agreement, the effective hourly return is zero. Not low. Zero.

The view counter keeps climbing, but that number lives in a completely separate system from the one that issues payments. A raw view total is not an invoice. It is an audience metric that only becomes revenue when specific conditions are met, verified, and approved by whoever controls the payment gate.

Mitigating Sourcing Risks Through Faster Production

Most clippers handle sourcing the same way: find exciting footage first, confirm permissions later (or not at all). It feels efficient because the creative momentum is immediate. But when a rights claim lands, or a reused-content flag blocks monetization, or a campaign manager rejects the source material, the hours already spent cannot be undone.

Tools like Crayo exist partly because that sourcing and production bottleneck is where most time bleeds out before you earn a single qualifying view. Reducing the production cycle on each clip does not fix a broken payment model, but it does change the opportunity cost calculation when you are working with approved, licensed material on a confirmed project.

The Three Ways Clippers Lose Money They Never Had

The failure cases follow a recognizable pattern.

• A channel reaches 200,000 views on a reposted clip but fails YouTube's reused-content review, so the ad revenue attributable to that clip is zero.
• A creator submits 60,000 views to a brand campaign but misses the minimum threshold or the submission window, so the contract payout is also zero.
• A freelancer edits 20 videos for a flat fee and earns exactly that fee, regardless of what those videos earn on YouTube afterward.

Three different payment systems, three different outcomes, and none of them are visible in the public view count. According to TechTarget RevCycleManagement, fewer than 30% of healthcare organizations proactively clarify payment terms before sending a bill, and the parallel to content work is uncomfortable: most clippers learn what they will actually be paid only after the work is done.

When the Platform Becomes a Second Gatekeeper

YouTube's Partner Program adds another layer that view-focused thinking often ignores. Historically, the standard ad revenue path has required 1,000 subscribers plus either 4,000 valid public watch hours within 12 months or 10 million valid public Shorts views within 90 days, subject to country eligibility and policy compliance. These thresholds can change, which is why the live Earn tab in YouTube Studio is the only reliable source before acting on any figure you read here.

Beyond eligibility, the 45% Shorts revenue share figure that circulates online is not 45 cents per view. It is the creator's allocated share of a pooled revenue system, and non-original reuploads or mass-produced repetitive content can be excluded entirely. Approval for the Partner Program does not license the source footage. It never did. Payment clarity before delivery is the exception, not the rule, across many industries, and YouTube clipping is no different.

Verifying Payment Qualification Rules Before Scaling

Starting in February 2027, YouTube will also apply a monthly qualified-views threshold to Shorts revenue sharing, so clippers building toward that path should verify the current requirements directly at the official Help pages before treating any published figure as final. The question that actually determines income is not "how many views did I get?" It is "which of those views entered a system that will issue a payment, and did I meet every condition that system requires?" That gap between views earned and revenue collected is where most clipper income estimates fall apart, and knowing the exact earning routes that close it changes everything.

6 Ways to Earn Money as a YouTube Clipper

Six income routes exist for YouTube clippers, and each one pays through a different mechanism. Your choice determines who pays you, when, and under what conditions.

1. Fixed-Fee and Hourly Editing: The Clearest Starting Point

The most predictable income a clipper can generate comes from a client paying a fixed amount per accepted clip or per tracked hour. Twelve clips at an agreed $25 each equals $300 gross, and that number does not shift based on how many people watch the final video. The client pays for the editing outcome, not the audience response. Hourly work follows the same logic. Fifteen approved hours at $20 per hour equals $300 gross, provided you track time accurately and agree upfront on how many revision rounds are included. The failure point here is usually scope creep: one "quick change" per clip, multiplied across a ten-clip batch, can quietly absorb two unbilled hours.

2. Monthly Retainers: Predictable Volume, Predictable Cash Flow

A retainer converts a recurring client relationship into a contracted income floor. Twenty finished clips per month at $500 means both parties know exactly what to expect, as long as the contract specifies delivery deadlines, revision limits, who supplies the source footage, and what happens to unused capacity. Vague retainers collapse under undefined expectations. The retainer model works best when the client has a consistent publishing schedule, and you have a reliable production process. A podcast studio releasing four episodes per week is a natural retainer client. A creator who posts sporadically is not.

3. Performance Campaigns: Read the Fine Print First

Authorized performance campaigns pay based on qualifying traffic, not raw view counts. A campaign offering $1.25 per 1,000 accepted views sounds straightforward until you read the conditions:

• Regional filters
• View windows
• Quality rejections
• Per-clip caps
• Minimum payout thresholds

All reduce the arithmetic's initial promise. At 80,000 accepted views under a $1 per 1,000 rate, the gross figure is $80 before any deductions, not a YouTube platform payout. The critical word is "qualifying." Campaigns define that term differently, and the definition is buried in the agreement most clippers skim. Before publishing a single clip under a campaign arrangement, confirm which platforms count, which view types count, how views are verified, and what the payment schedule looks like in writing.

4. Original Channel Monetization: A Different Business Entirely

Most clippers manage their production workflow by downloading footage and editing quickly, which works fine for client work but creates real problems when the goal shifts to monetizing a personal channel. The familiar approach of reuploading streamer highlights or podcast moments without a lawful basis does not qualify for YouTube Partner Program monetization, and the reused-content policy enforced at the channel level can block revenue even on clips that avoid copyright claims individually.

Tools like Crayo can speed up the production side of clip creation, reducing time spent on repetitive formatting and caption work. No software can judge whether a clip meets platform originality standards. That determination belongs to the creator and, ultimately, to YouTube's review process.

Building Monetizable Channels Through Original Commentary

Building an eligible original channel means making a creative contribution that goes beyond selecting timestamps. Original analysis, commentary, or a consistent editorial voice applied to licensed or owned footage is what separates a monetizable publishing channel from a highlight reel. According to YouTube Creator Economy Reports, top YouTube clippers can earn $500 to $5,000 per month, but that range reflects creators who have built original channels with established audiences, not clippers who are reuploading third-party content.

5. Sponsored and Affiliate Content: Explicit Agreements, Explicit Disclosures

Sponsored clips and affiliate placements can add income on top of any of the above routes, but only when two conditions are met.

• First, the footage and music used in the clip must be properly licensed.
• Second, the commercial relationship must be clearly disclosed and comply with platform rules and applicable advertising standards.

A creator who makes an original explanatory short and discloses an affiliate link in the description has a measurable income model:

• A defined payer
• A defined conversion condition
• A defined disclosure

A clipper who adds an affiliate link to a reuploaded highlight without rights clearance has a liability, not a revenue stream.

6. Licensed Editing Packages for Organizations

The most underused route for clippers with strong editing skills is selling packaged deliverables to businesses, podcast networks, and education providers. A webinar owner who needs three vertical highlights and three captioned square versions has a concrete production need. They are not buying views; they are buying finished files that fit their distribution channels.

Pricing this work follows a simple floor calculation:

• Hours per clip multiplied by your target hourly rate
• Plus tool and overhead costs
• Plus an allowance for revisions

At 0.75 hours per clip at $20 per hour, plus $3 overhead and $5 revision allowance, the floor is $23 per clip before complexity or turnaround adjustments. Eight clips at that floor implies a $184 gross package minimum, which you adjust upward for tight deadlines, multiple aspect ratios, or rights administration.

How to Choose Your Starting Route

The selection rule is simpler than most people make it. Clippers with editing skills but no existing audience should pursue paid client work first, because the income depends on a contract rather than an algorithm. Creators who already publish original content should review their channel's eligibility for platform monetization. Anyone considering a performance campaign should read the full agreement before producing a single clip.

Short-form video content generates 1,200% more shares than text and images combined, which explains why demand for clip editing services continues to grow. That demand is real, but it does not guarantee that any individual clipper gets paid. The gap between market demand and personal income closes only when you have a signed agreement, a clear deliverable, and a payment schedule that does not depend on viral outcomes.

Price the Work, Not the Hope

• Offer clients three contract formats:
  • Per accepted clip
  • Fixed monthly bundle
  • Hourly overflow
• Specify deliverables in writing:
  • Length
  • Aspect ratio
  • Burned-in captions
  • Hook structure
  • Export file format
  • Number of revision rounds
  • Who supplies licensed footage
  • Payment milestones
  • Use rights

Each detail is a future dispute avoided. Never offer unlimited revisions, and never guarantee a view count. The first promise erodes your margin on every project. The second promise isn't yours to make. The honest takeaway is that none of these seven routes is passive income at the start. Each one requires a defined relationship, a measurable deliverable, and a payment condition you can verify. Treat platform views as uncertain upside, price against the work you control, and the income becomes something you can actually forecast.

Related Reading

• Best Video Clipping Tool For YouTube

• Repurpose Keynote Into Social Media Clips

• Podcast Reels

• Repurposing Content For Social Media

• Church Reels Editing

• Podcast Shorts

• How To Trim A Zoom Recording Saved On My Computer

• How To Start Clipping On Instagram

• How To Repurpose Webinar Content For Marketing

• How To Add Audio To A Video

The 30-Minute Workflow to Evaluate a YouTube Clipping Job

Evaluating a clipping opportunity takes 30 minutes if you run it as a structured decision session, not a creative one. The goal is a single written output: a one-page assessment that tells you whether to proceed, renegotiate, or walk away before you open any editing software.

Minute 0 to 5: Confirm Who Owns the Footage

The failure point is usually here, and it costs the most time if you ignore it. Identify the rights holder of the source recording, then get written confirmation that you are authorized to edit and distribute clips from it. Check music and any third-party content separately, because a podcast host can own their own voice and still have no right to the background track playing at the intro. If you cannot answer "who authorized me, in writing, to use this?" within five minutes, the rest of the session is premature. Pause until that answer exists.

Minutes 5 to 10: Name the Payer and the Payment Condition

The pattern that surfaces across failed clipping projects is the same every time: someone assumed that a willing client and a large audience were enough to guarantee income. They are not. You need one specific entity that is contractually obligated to pay you, and one specific condition that triggers that payment. A client contract, an approved campaign agreement, or a direct monetization arrangement on content you own all qualify. A verbal "let's see how it performs" does not. If no one is obligated to pay before you begin, views are an exposure metric, not a revenue mechanism.

Minutes 10 to 15: Write the Deliverable in Exact Terms

Scope creep does not announce itself. It arrives as a casual message asking for "just one more version" after you have already delivered what you thought was the final clip. Prevent it by:

• Writing down the vertical format
• Clip length
• Caption style
• Revision count
• Posting platform
• Turnaround time
• Ownership terms
• Who holds approval authority

If the brief does not specify these things, you specify them and send them back for confirmation. An unconfirmed deliverable is an open-ended commitment, and open-ended commitments are where hourly rates quietly collapse.

Minutes 15 to 20: Run the Unit Economics

Take the offered compensation and divide it by your realistic time estimate. That estimate must include sourcing, communication, revision rounds, and delivery, not editing alone. A $60 clip that takes three hours of total work yields $20 gross per hour before tools, taxes, and overhead. That is arithmetic, not a judgment about market rates, and it is the number that tells you whether the project is sustainable. The same calculation changes significantly when scope shifts. If a client who offered $90 for two shorts later needs six versions with daily turnaround and unlimited revisions, the nominal fee stays the same while the effective hourly rate drops toward unprofitable. Run the math against the actual scope, not the original pitch.

Minutes 20 to 25: Check Platform Policy and Monetization Eligibility

Most creators skip this step until after they have already built the clips. According to FlowHunt's analysis of 93,421 YouTube videos across the top 100 channels, content strategy decisions at the production stage, including originality signals, directly affect algorithmic distribution. That matters whether you are uploading to your own channel or delivering to a client. Check originality requirements, reused-content eligibility under the relevant platform's rules, and any disclosure obligations tied to the campaign. YouTube's monetization policies treat reused content differently from original editorial work, and fair use does not automatically qualify a clip for monetization. Assess copyright and reused-content policy as two separate questions, because they are.

Minutes 25 to 30: Make One Decision and Write it Down

The common mistake is ending this session with a feeling rather than a decision. "Looks promising" is not a deliverable. Write down one of four outcomes:

• Proceed
• Renegotiate terms
• Seek additional permission
• Decline

Then write the next specific action and one measurable success metric. Your one-page document should include the rights holder, the authorized source, the payer, the proposed deliverable, the acceptance condition, the estimated hours, the possible gross compensation, and the next action. If any of those fields are blank, the opportunity is not ready to accept.

Six Mistakes That Quietly Drain Clipper Income

1. Conflating visible views with payout-qualified views is the most common. Every campaign, contract, and platform monetization program defines qualifying metrics differently, and the number shown on a video rarely triggers payment. Track the contract's specific metric, not the dashboard number.
2. Copying viral clips without confirmed rights is the second. A clip circulating widely does not create a license to redistribute it commercially. Seek permission, obtain licensing, and add meaningful original editorial value before assuming distribution is safe.
3. Treating fair use as automatic monetization approval is the third. Fair use is a legal defense against infringement claims, not a platform monetization category. A clip that passes a fair use analysis can still be flagged as reused content and excluded from ad revenue programs. Assess them separately.
4. Spending more editing hours than the payout justifies is the fourth. Track accepted output and actual hourly return across every project. When the math stops working, renegotiate before the next batch, not after.
5. Ignoring payment caps, clawbacks, or reporting windows is the fifth. Some campaign agreements include maximum payout ceilings, expiring performance windows, or clawback clauses tied to quality reviews. Audit the full terms before you begin creating, not after you submit.
6. Quoting client packages without scope or revision limits is the sixth. A package price without defined deliverables invites scope creep. Specify the number of exports, the revision rounds included, and the fee for changes beyond that scope before the project starts.

Which Income Model Fits Your Situation

The decision is not about which model sounds best. It is about which model matches your current risk tolerance and income needs.

• If you need predictable income, pitch a retainer with fixed deliverables and a defined acceptance process.
• If you can tolerate uncertain performance income and have carefully verified the campaign terms, a performance-based arrangement can work alongside steadier contracts.
• If you are building channel equity over time, plan for original content and stay current on platform policy compliance, because the rules that govern monetization eligibility change more often than most creators expect.

What the Completed Session Actually Produces

The output is not a feeling of confidence. It is a written record:

• Rights holder confirmed
• Payer identified
• Deliverable scoped
• Economics calculated
• Policy checked
• Decision made

That document protects you when a client disputes scope, when a campaign rejects clips on a technicality, or when you need to explain why you declined a project that looked profitable on the surface. Many creators who struggle to forecast clipping income aren't making bad creative decisions. They are making business decisions without a documented framework. The 30-minute session closes that gap.

Tracking Cash Flow and Contractual Edge Cases

The most useful habit is counting payments received and hours spent, not screenshots of view counts. Views measure reach. Payments measure whether the work was structured to convert reach into income in the first place. Most clippers handle this evaluation mentally, running rough numbers in their head while already excited about the creative work ahead. That approach works fine for simple, low-stakes projects. But as clip volume increases and client relationships grow more complex, a mental checklist cannot catch the edge cases:

• The campaign with a hidden quality rejection clause
• The brief that quietly added three extra formats after you agreed to the rate
• The source audio that cleared rights for editorial use but not commercial distribution

Boosting Margins Through Automated Assembly

A clip creator tool like Crayo can significantly compress the production side of this workflow, handling formatting, caption generation, and export at a pace manual editing cannot match. That efficiency matters most when your time calculation in step three reveals a tight margin. When production hours drop, the same fee becomes a healthier hourly return, and the decision to proceed becomes easier to justify.

The Final Checklist Before You Commit

Six questions, each requiring a specific answer rather than a general yes:

1. Rights: Can you point to the written authorization that allows you to edit and distribute this source material?
2. Scope: What is the exact clip count, length, caption standard, and deadline?
3. Acceptance: Who approves the work, within what timeframe, and how many revisions are included before additional fees apply?
4. Compensation: Who pays, when, under what specific conditions, and are there caps or clawbacks in the agreement?
5. Time: Does your hour estimate include sourcing, communication, revisions, and delivery, not just editing?
6. Policy: If you are uploading to your own channel, does the content satisfy the platform's originality and monetization requirements?

A blank answer to any of these is a signal to pause, not proceed. The goal of this entire session is to prevent you from producing a full batch of clips only to discover afterward that the footage cannot be used, the work isn't billable, or the rate doesn't cover the actual hours required. Once you know how to evaluate a single opportunity in 30 minutes, the next question is whether the workflow you use to produce the work matches that same level of precision.

Build a Repeatable, Permission-First Clipping Workflow With Crayo

Once you have confirmed source rights, identified a clear story moment, and set a defined deliverable, the production step should move quickly. The familiar approach is to open a timeline editor, manually hunt for the right segment, cut it, caption it, and export it, which can easily consume 90 minutes for a single two-minute clip. That time cost is real, and it compounds across every project in your queue.

Testing All-in-One Assembly Workflows

Tools like Crayo can compress the assembly phase by supporting caption generation, vertical framing, and output formatting in one place. Test it on footage you already have permission to use, track your actual minutes per finished clip before and after, and let that number decide whether the workflow earns a permanent spot in your process. Check current capabilities and pricing directly at Crayo before building it into a client commitment.

Turning Production Metrics Into Repeatable Revenue

A clipper's earning potential isn't determined by view count. It is the combination of authorized source material, a contractually obligated payer, and a production process you can repeat without losing an hour to rework. Deep impressions with no payment structure attached are just an audience metric. A clear business model, documented permissions, and measurable time per accepted deliverable turn clipping work into income you can actually count.

Related Reading

• How To Trim A Zoom Recording

• Best AI Video Tools Like Vizard For Webinar Clips

• How To Trim Google Meet Recording

• Best Audiogram Maker

• Best AI Video Repurposing Tools 2026

• Content Repurposing Tool

• Best Way To Make Podcast Clips

• How To Automate My Video Clipping

• Best AI Video Clipping Tools 2026