Google Ad Manager is a platform for publishers that combines the former DoubleClick for Publishers and DoubleClick Ad Exchange products.
N/A
StackAdapt
Score 8.8 out of 10
N/A
StackAdapt, headquartered in Toronto offers their native advertising specialized DSP, supporting programmatic advertising with audience discovery, B2B targeting, and engagement analytics among other features.
N/A
Pricing
Google Ad Manager
StackAdapt
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Google Ad Manager
StackAdapt
Free Trial
No
No
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
—
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Google Ad Manager
StackAdapt
Considered Both Products
Google Ad Manager
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose Google Ad Manager
Among all the ad management platforms I use on a regular basis, Google Ad Manager is the most straightforward to use. However, I probably have a paid search bias, as I spend more time there than with the paid social or programmatic platforms. Even still, Google Ad Manager is …
I personally liked it because of the complex features available. Knowing that this comes from Google, I did not have second thoughts - Comes from an Top tier brand.
There were other products in the market, however, I chose to stick to this due to the following reasons,
Google ads manager is the forefront in search marketing. Other platforms mirror features and trends set by Google while Google continues to innovate and evolve in a class of its own.
With Google ad there are more options to be able to put an ad together and to be able to use the information that best suits our situation. With the other vendors, there is limited use to be able to target and also to be able to correct once deployed or pushed forward where …
The main advantage of Google Ad Manager over the Trade Desk is based on the fact that Google Ad Manager has better data to identify a user on any device as it has more data and the user is signed in over Google Ad Manager´s set of properties. That is why results on Google Ad …
We use Google Ads Manager to manage ad campaigns on Google I found that Google Ads Manager was confusing, had a steep learning curve, and had poor documentation. I found myself having to look at tutorials from other websites. I find this to be true of most Google products. They …
Google streamlines the process and is supremely easier to use than Facebook for Business (utilized for Facebook ad management.). Facebook's control over their management system makes the program much more cumbersome and less effective. Meanwhile, as mentioned, the Google Ad …
As I alluded to earlier, you kind of have to be on Google if you want to search marketing. I've tried Bing Ads and I just don't see the same volume or quality. With dwindling targeting abilities on social media sites like Facebook, Google is still tall and mighty and helps us …
We selected Google Ad Manager in place of our internal software because Ad Manager allows us to better target our audience while tracking performance at a higher level.
Google Ad Manager is the best simply because of how great it is to advertise on the largest search engine on the internet. The other platforms I think have better dashboards and segmentation options but Google is the best because their audience is the largest and most focused …
Google Ad Manager is one of the only free to use ad management services out there. While there are several alternatives such as OpenX and Adzerk, Google Ad Manager provides the best bang for your buck (considering you don't spend any money on the actual product itself). …
Bings ad tool is clunky, geographies don't import well/accurately and it's old looking. It's basically a Google Ad Manager, but only for the Bing Microsoft network.
We looked at Adsense and Google Ad Manager when we were selecting a platform. Google Manager seemed easier to use and more robust when it came to social management. Google Ad Manager was also easier to use and offered a better community to help you if you get stuck on an issue.
It allows me to find exactly the information I am looking for in one place. It allows me to share that data with others both internally and externally. There is a mobile version and though it isn't as good, it helps for when I am out of the office or traveling.
We've used a few other way less robust ad servers, and Google Ad Manager is definitely the top tier ad server you can have as a publisher. There isn't much competition in this space for a large publisher that would make us feel comfortable switching to another ad server. We've …
I selected Google Ad Manager because it's a more widely used search engine and I wanted to maximize our efforts and spending, as a small nonprofit with a limited budget. I think Yahoo! Advertising is good because it's independent, as in not linked to all of your Google Cloud …
In my current position at this company, we've only ever used Ad Manager due to management's comfort with Google's application suite. I've used other software such as Adzerk, AOL's One, and OpenX in previous roles. I like Ad Manager because it's incredibly intuitive if you've …
We think Google Ads Manager is better because it is more simple. It's holistic because it really optimizes what's best for our brands and campaigns. It doesn't just serve out our ads to a number of people. Google Ads Manager makes sure that we serve them out to the right people.
With Google Ads you are able to set your budget and work within it. However, it is pay per click so the price does increase substantially. StackAdapt seems more budget friendly.
StackAdapt has an easier self-serve platform than JamLoop, where you can also buy programmatic CTV and display banners. Though they lack audio placements, which is another cross-channel tactic in StackAdapt to reach the same audience with multiple formats. Comparable CPM rates …
We have evaluated Criteo because we have many eCommerce clients. But we decided against it because StackAdapt seems to have much better and complete targeting options and ways to optimize campaigns post-launch, whereas Criteo feels more like a "spray & pray" approach. …
We selected StackAdapt because we thought they would provide us with a greater ROI for our prospecting campaigns and retargeting campaigns. Unfortunately, we had a problem with the prospecting campaigns which was that we had a very huge audience segment to target so it does not …
StackAdapt is significantly less expensive than the Trade Desk. StackAdapt doesn't have campaign minimums, unlike the Trade Desk, meaning you can experiment with a lower ad spend to gain client confidence before investing at a larger level. Plus they don't lock you into an …
Even though we find the StackAdapt UI clunky and not intuitive, it's a huge step up from the Basis UI. We previously used Basis and ran all the media ourselves, and there were spend thresholds we had to hit with Basis that often made it a constraining platform to use. …
Much better in terms of audience definition and campaign control. We found AdRoll to be relatively easy to use, but light in terms of campaign parameters, whereas StackAdapt is also easy to use but allows us to be completely in the driver's seat.
I couldn't find Teads in the dropdown, but that's what I'd most compare StackAdapt too. Both generated strong results for our various clients and campaigns run on the platforms, but overall, I've been far more impressed with StackAdapt. Not only is StackAdapt's dashboard …
Basis is great for display ads. StackAdapt, however, is in a completely different world when it comes to NAtie ADvertising. Typical DSPs like Basis do not come close to comparing.
In terms of Native advertising, StackAdapt blows Outbrain and Taboola out of the water. The ability to drive impressions is similar between all three, but we have seen a large improvement in the quality of these impressions from StackAdapt. Clicks, engagement, and sales are all …
StackAdapt's video capabilities perform in-line with what we have seen from Sharethrough, but without any minimums attached to their campaigns. As far as Nativo, their traffic was lower, but the quality of those sessions was better. As far as re-targeting capabilities, we have …
StackAdapt has better support, better integration, is easier to work with, and listens to customers. Other platforms serve up a take-it-or-leave-it attitude to all but the largest customers.
It is only suited for marketing. Make sure you have analytics on your site to track the people coming, final sales, and conversions because it is at it's best when you can use it to really read and understand the data at hand. Google Ads does everything it needs to in ads, and you don't need to be an expert to begin with it. However, I would not just tell someone to "go create an account" if they know very little about digital ads. Consult with someone first. It can be a little daunting if you were to do that!
Campaigns for Brand Awareness: StackAdapt works effectively in campaigns for brand awareness where expanding brand visibility and reaching a large audience are the main objectives. Advertisers can target particular demographics, hobbies, and behaviors with its sophisticated targeting features, making sure that the correct audience groups receive brand messaging.
Hyper targeting - I love how we can target, analyze, and then hyper target [advertisements] to our audiences to be able to hyper target the audiences that convert best. [Audiences besides] Google understands them, but also demographics, locations, search terms, and more.
Advanced reporting - Without Google's seemingly endless ways to read and break down reports, we would not be able to best make decisions to maximize ROI.
Strong conversion algorithm updates - The algorithm has become impressively strong for 'maximized conversions' and 'smart' campaigns. [That's] coming from someone who hated these portions of the algorithm until about 2019 where the updates (and continued updates) have worked incredibly well for these algorithms' purpose.
Communication: Their reps are incredibly transparent, thorough and detailed. I really, really appreciate that.
Creativity: Not only are the reps communicative, they actually bring new, fresh ideas to the table. As busy as we are, I can't thank them enough for that.
Easy-to-use: As detailed as the dashboard is, it's actually pretty easy to use and bring new users up-to-speed on.
Sometimes it can bog down and crash. This is rare, but it is processing a lot of steps/changes all at once and it's not expected to be perfect.
Being able to quickly filter by campaign types would be nice (PPC/Display/Video Pre-roll). Our fix is to run these campaigns in totally separate accounts, so there is no overlapping in reporting/etc. This helps with seeing stats clearly without having to filter constantly.
There has been occasional slopping maintenance of the campaigns, and we have to follow up with questions about spending spikes or significant changes in delivery CPMs.
Account rep knowledge can sometimes be lacking. When we question our reps about performance, we sometimes get confusing or nonsensical answers.
The reporting UI is definitely clunky and unintuitive.
I think it's useful for our team and we rely on it to improve our business. It is within our budget also. Although we still will need an approval from the upper-level management team, I don't see any problem with that
The platform is easy to use and understand whether it is being used as self-serve or a managed service. The audience targeting is solid, and array of placements is versatile. With these, the level of engagement for video content is usually great
Love the product and how the GUI is as it is user friendly. When working with the product it is better to have some knowledge of what ad's you want to deploy where so that it is easier to use and move forward.
It is very user friendly and if any team members need further help, we are able to easily access their customer service team for hands on assistance with an actual human being, not a robot. Their team has been incredibly kind, understanding and thorough. It is really a great all in one tool for a business who relies greatly on advertising campaigns.
I could say a lot about this topic. As an agency, we get a new [representative] to talk to almost every quarter to go over select accounts and the campaigns within. Most of the time, these [educated representatives], don't provide any new feedback, or I just simply [disagree] with their approach. This is not all the time however. I have learned a lot from a rare few, [individuals] that have given me new strategies and access to betas early on. The other side of support, is the [overseas support platform]. [It] is usually not very helpful, but you can [emphasize] issues and they can research [them]. The Google Tag Implementation team is pristine though. When you need them, you need to set an appointment, which is usually 2 weeks out; they are so over-my-head intelligent, I've never had a bad experience with them and whenever I needed them for a fix, they solved it [within] the first call.
Support has been exceptional. Our dedicated team is always available and ready to answer any questions that may arise. We receive updates from them on a regular basis and they go above and beyond providing assistance when needed. The team is absolutely one of the bright spots in our relationship with StackAdapt
As I alluded to earlier, you kind of have to be on Google if you want to search marketing. I've tried Bing Ads and I just don't see the same volume or quality. With dwindling targeting abilities on social media sites like Facebook, Google is still tall and mighty and helps us with intent-based targeting rather than just interest-based targeting.
StackAdapt has an easier self-serve platform than JamLoop, where you can also buy programmatic CTV and display banners. Though they lack audio placements, which is another cross-channel tactic in StackAdapt to reach the same audience with multiple formats. Comparable CPM rates on CTV, and customer support on both is similarly strong.