comparison

AdBuyMCP vs MNTN

They have the proven performance-CTV product. We publish what we charge. Decide which of those you need more.

MNTN built the performance-television category: self-serve connected TV with outcome measurement, Verified Visits attribution and a creative marketplace, listed on the New York Stock Exchange in May 2025 on 2024 revenue of $226m. It is a real product with real scale, and we are not going to pretend otherwise. The comparison turns on one thing. MNTN's own pricing documentation states that it keeps a percentage of media spend and does not disclose its margin — a position it has been criticised for consistently in the trade press. AdBuyMCP charges a published 10%, falling to 5% plus £749 a month above £25,000 of trailing thirty-day spend, with one fee ledger entry accruing per delivery row so the fee sits beside the media it was charged on. If you are buying connected TV alone and you do not mind an undisclosed take, MNTN is the more finished product today.
where they are ahead
5 things
what is left for us
4 things
rails that have spent money
0 of 25
our fee
10% of media
the case for choosing themStated, not hedged
the faster route
Bring the brief you are weighing against MNTN and we will compile it live, including the parts MNTN does better.
Book a working session
their promise

What you get if you choose MNTN

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.

Performance TV: self-serve connected TV with ROAS measurement, Verified Visits attribution and a creative marketplace.
the promise, in the terms it is made in · sourced from MNTN pricing model and MNTN Q2 2025 results
both columns

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.

where MNTN is ahead
5

Genuinely ahead, today

  • 01A proven performance-CTV product with real customers and public financials
  • 02Verified Visits attribution, built and validated over years
  • 03A creative marketplace attached to the buying platform
  • 04Scale and momentum: $226m 2024 revenue, and growing at 25 to 48% year on year through 2025
  • 05A single-channel product is simpler to run than a seven-channel one
what is left for adbuymcp
4

What is actually left

  • 01A published take rate rather than an undisclosed margin inside the price
  • 02Six channels MNTN does not sell, including UK cinema and addressable television
  • 03UK-first supply and UK clearance workflows
  • 04A causal engine that refuses underpowered tests rather than reporting one

5 against 4 on this page. The left column is the longer of the two, and it is rendered at full size rather than summarised into a sentence. Both lists are rendered from src/data/comparisons.ts unedited.

If the left column contains the thing your plan actually depends on, MNTN is the better buy and a working session will say so in the first ten minutes.

Talk it through
// before you decide

Bring the brief, not the shortlist.

Forty-five minutes, a real audience, compiled live in the sandbox against the plan you are weighing MNTN for. Where the honest answer is that MNTN serves it better, that is the answer you get in the session rather than after a contract.

Book a working session

45 minutes. Bring a real brief and we compile it live. · deterministic sandbox · no credentials and no card

the decision

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 MNTN when

Connected TV is the campaign, you are buying US inventory, and you want a product that has been proven with real advertisers. Their effective programme minimums — around $10,000 for retargeting and $25,000 for prospecting on third-party comparisons — put them out of reach below that, but above it they are the established choice.

Choose AdBuyMCP when

You need to know what you are being charged, or connected TV is one line in a UK plan that also has to carry audio, out-of-home, cinema, search or social against the same audience.

The verdict at the top of this page — “They have the proven performance-CTV product. We publish what we charge. Decide which of those you need more.” — 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 through
where to check this

The 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 standing caveat

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 through
the other comparisons

The 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 left

vs Universal Ads

For UK television alone, go direct. AdBuyMCP's argument only starts when a second channel is involved.

5 ahead · 4 left

vs Global AdPower

They own the inventory. If your audio and outdoor plan is a Global plan, buy it from Global.

4 ahead · 3 left

vs an agency

The fee comparison flatters us and the capability comparison does not. Both are true.

5 ahead · 5 left

vs Google and Meta

Not a replacement. An incremental layer around the budget you are already spending well.

4 ahead · 4 left

vs 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 left

vs 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 left

vs 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 left

vs DV360

Unmatched scale inside Google's ecosystem. The neutrality question is the whole point.

4 ahead · 4 left

vs 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 left

vs 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 left

vs OOH specialists

Better out-of-home tooling than ours. Buy from them if out-of-home is the campaign.

4 ahead · 4 left

vs Basis

The same idea, built for agencies and for digital channels. The overlap is real and the gap is UK paperwork.

4 ahead · 4 left

vs Caasie

They proved the pattern. If you want DOOH with no minimum and no conversation, use them.

4 ahead · 4 left

All 15 comparisons, and the claims we refuse to make

Questions about AdBuyMCP and MNTN

4 questions in two mirrored pairs. The answers are the same lists this page renders above, so the question about what MNTN does better cannot be published without the answer that goes with it.

Should I choose MNTN instead of AdBuyMCP?

Connected TV is the campaign, you are buying US inventory, and you want a product that has been proven with real advertisers. Their effective programme minimums — around $10,000 for retargeting and $25,000 for prospecting on third-party comparisons — put them out of reach below that, but above it they are the established choice.

When is AdBuyMCP the better choice than MNTN?

You need to know what you are being charged, or connected TV is one line in a UK plan that also has to carry audio, out-of-home, cinema, search or social against the same audience.

What is MNTN better at than AdBuyMCP?

5 things, stated without hedging: A proven performance-CTV product with real customers and public financials; verified Visits attribution, built and validated over years; A creative marketplace attached to the buying platform; scale and momentum: $226m 2024 revenue, and growing at 25 to 48% year on year through 2025; A single-channel product is simpler to run than a seven-channel one.

What is left for AdBuyMCP against MNTN?

4 things, and the list is deliberately not padded: A published take rate rather than an undisclosed margin inside the price; six channels MNTN does not sell, including UK cinema and addressable television; UK-first supply and UK clearance workflows; A causal engine that refuses underpowered tests rather than reporting one.