AdBuyMCP vs Google and Meta
Not a replacement. An incremental layer around the budget you are already spending well.
What you get if you choose Google and Meta
The case for the alternative comes first, in the terms it is usually made in rather than in ours. A comparison that opens by restating the alternative in our own vocabulary has already lost the reader who knows it better than we do.
Familiar, liquid, closed-loop acquisition where most of the budget already is.
Where they are ahead, and what is actually left
Two lists at the same size, in the same card treatment, with theirs first. The left column is written without hedging and without a compensating clause on the end of each line, and the right one is often narrow — where the honest answer is three things rather than ten, it is three things long.
Genuinely ahead, today
- 01Most of your budget already lives there, and it works
- 02Existing data, existing conversion signals, existing pixel
- 03Daily optimisation nobody outside the platform can match
- 04A low operational burden
What is actually left
- 01Incremental reach beyond the feed, if it can be proved
- 02One audience definition spanning the feed and the premium channels around it
- 03Cross-channel frequency deduplication, so a reach number is not three overlapping ones
- 04A causal test that refuses to run when it cannot answer the question
4 against 4 on this page. The two columns are the same length here, which is how the material came out rather than a target: neither list is padded to match the other. Both lists are rendered from src/data/comparisons.ts unedited.
If the left column contains the thing your plan actually depends on, Google and Meta is the better buy and a working session will say so in the first ten minutes.
Talk it throughBring the brief, not the shortlist.
Forty-five minutes, a real audience, compiled live in the sandbox against the plan you are weighing Google and Meta for. Where the honest answer is that Google and Meta serves it better, that is the answer you get in the session rather than after a contract.
Book a working session45 minutes. Bring a real brief and we compile it live. · deterministic sandbox · no credentials and no card
Which of the two you should actually buy
Both blocks are the same size, in the same box, with the same weight of rule around them. The one on the left is the case for not buying this, it is written to be actionable rather than to be dismissed, and on a page like this it is the more useful of the two.
Choose Google and Meta when
Your acquisition is still scaling profitably inside search and social. Adding channels before the cheap ones are saturated is a way to spend more for less, and we will not tell you otherwise.
Choose AdBuyMCP when
Costs are rising and incremental return is flat, and the question has changed from "how do we spend more here?" to "is there anyone left here we have not already reached?"
The verdict at the top of this page — “Not a replacement. An incremental layer around the budget you are already spending well.” — is the one-line version of both blocks, written before the argument rather than after it and published so it can be quoted back at us.
Neither block describes your situation exactly. A working session is where the actual version of the question gets answered, and the answer is sometimes the other one.
Talk it throughThe evidence behind both columns
Everything asserted above is checkable somewhere other than this page: in our own evidence ledger, in the published fee, or in the alternative's own words. The three are linked below rather than described.
The rails behind this comparison
These are the connectors in our own evidence ledger that this comparison turns on: the alternative itself, where it is also a rail registered here, and the rails we would use to reach the same channels. Each row carries the grade the ledger gives it and the specific thing standing between it and the next grade, so the position is stated at its real strength — which for a stub is that no live method succeeds at all — rather than implied by a logo.
Google Ads
google-ads · buying api · Paid searchPaid search, with buyer-applied keywords and negatives on a version-fenced draft. Provider suggestions never auto-buy.
The design-partner canary, passed for this rail specifically: staged PAUSED, human-recorded creative decision, separately granted resume, capped canary, then spend reconciled to the Google account total.
Initial canaries are clicks-only. Live conversion optimisation fails closed until an approved conversion definition is bound to an exact provider-owned goal, read back before staging and reverified at resume.
Microsoft Advertising
microsoft-ads · buying api · Paid searchPaid search on Bing, planned against the same neutral brief as Google rather than as a separate campaign.
The same canary gate, passed separately. A Google pass proves nothing about Microsoft.
Meta Ads
meta-ads · buying api · Paid socialPaid social on Facebook and Instagram, staged PAUSED until a human approves the exact creative bytes.
The canary gate, passed separately, including an ad-account and Page identity check.
TikTok for Business
tiktok-ads · buying api · Paid socialPaid social on TikTok. AI-generated video carries a self-disclosure provenance declaration that must survive the provider readback.
The canary gate, plus exact AI-generation provenance on every selected video.
Of 25 registered connectors, 0 have spent money and 0 have reconciled a real report. Whatever is in the right-hand column above is a capability the sandbox demonstrates end to end and the live rails have not yet proved with a controlled paid activation, which is a real difference between this and every alternative on the comparison hub. The whole matrix, graded rail by rail with the blocker on each, is on the supply status page.
Sources
The published material behind the promise and the position above. They open in a new tab, and they are the sources themselves rather than our summary of them.
Every number above is checkable before you talk to us, which is the point of publishing them. The call is for the part that is specific to your plan.
Talk it throughThe other alternatives on the same shortlist
Most buyers are weighing more than one of these at once, and the verdicts differ. Several of them recommend the alternative outright, which is worth knowing before you read them.
vs StackAdapt
They are the stronger DSP by a distance. The gap they leave is UK-specific paperwork and visible approximation.
5 ahead · 5 leftvs Universal Ads
For UK television alone, go direct. AdBuyMCP's argument only starts when a second channel is involved.
5 ahead · 4 leftvs Global AdPower
They own the inventory. If your audio and outdoor plan is a Global plan, buy it from Global.
4 ahead · 3 leftvs an agency
The fee comparison flatters us and the capability comparison does not. Both are true.
5 ahead · 5 leftvs doing it yourself
For one or two channels, do it yourself. The case for a layer starts at three and gets stronger with each one.
4 ahead · 5 leftvs MNTN
They have the proven performance-CTV product. We publish what we charge. Decide which of those you need more.
5 ahead · 4 leftvs tvScientific
Their pricing model is better than ours for a qualifying performance buyer. That is not a concession, it is the honest answer.
4 ahead · 4 leftvs The Trade Desk
The category's most capable buying platform, priced accordingly. Not a fair fight on supply, and not the same job.
5 ahead · 4 leftvs DV360
Unmatched scale inside Google's ecosystem. The neutrality question is the whole point.
4 ahead · 4 leftvs Amazon DSP
We are built to buy through them. If Amazon audiences and CTV are the whole plan, go direct and skip the layer.
4 ahead · 4 leftvs Blis
Genuinely strong in the UK and on privacy, with a fee structure that beats ours. The gap is addressable TV, cinema and published fidelity.
4 ahead · 4 leftvs OOH specialists
Better out-of-home tooling than ours. Buy from them if out-of-home is the campaign.
4 ahead · 4 leftvs Basis
The same idea, built for agencies and for digital channels. The overlap is real and the gap is UK paperwork.
4 ahead · 4 leftvs Caasie
They proved the pattern. If you want DOOH with no minimum and no conversation, use them.
4 ahead · 4 leftQuestions about AdBuyMCP and Google and Meta
4 questions in two mirrored pairs. The answers are the same lists this page renders above, so the question about what Google and Meta does better cannot be published without the answer that goes with it.
Should I choose Google and Meta instead of AdBuyMCP?
Your acquisition is still scaling profitably inside search and social. Adding channels before the cheap ones are saturated is a way to spend more for less, and we will not tell you otherwise.
When is AdBuyMCP the better choice than Google and Meta?
Costs are rising and incremental return is flat, and the question has changed from "how do we spend more here?" to "is there anyone left here we have not already reached?"
What is Google and Meta better at than AdBuyMCP?
4 things, stated without hedging: most of your budget already lives there, and it works; existing data, existing conversion signals, existing pixel; daily optimisation nobody outside the platform can match; A low operational burden.
What is left for AdBuyMCP against Google and Meta?
4 things, and the list is deliberately not padded: incremental reach beyond the feed, if it can be proved; one audience definition spanning the feed and the premium channels around it; cross-channel frequency deduplication, so a reach number is not three overlapping ones; A causal test that refuses to run when it cannot answer the question.