Choosing the right native ad network can be a difficult task. Yes, and a lot of publishers are losing revenue in the process of finding the right native ad network for their site. After working with numerous native ad networks, what I have realized is- the CPC rates and the RPM of these native ad networks vary depending upon the niche and the quality of the site. For some sites, the RPM can be as low as 10 cents while for others it can be as high as $3. A big factor is the traffic source. You need to have the right traffic mix to make more money from native ad networks. In this article, we’re going to compare MGID vs Content.ad. We hope this will provide you a better insight of these ad networks and help you make a better decision if you are confused between MGID vs Content.ad.
Content.ad Minimum Traffic Requirement vs MGID Minimum Traffic Requirement
Content.ad reviews every website before approving it and generally takes up to two business days to make its approval/reject decision. Once approved, publishers have to add the JS code or HTML code on their website to show recommendations. WordPress websites could access the network through plugins. On the code or plugin is installed and activated, content recommendations start to work instantly but the ads start showing up only after successful approval of the website. Content.ad requires you to have good volume of EU and tier 1 traffic to approve your website. Also, sites should have more than 10,000 page views per day. Although we have seen sites with lower traffic metrics getting approved, but that is mostly if the traffic is from Europe. Content.ad has a very strong presence in Europe.
Mgid has a more flexible minimum traffic requirement. You should be approved with less than 10,000 page views a day ie. 300,000 monthly traffic volume. You will also be assigned a dedicated account manager who can answer your queries and help you with the entire setup.
Content.ad Revenue Share vs MGID Revenue Share
Content.ad does at 60/40 revenue share. Publisher shall receive sixty percent (60%) of all gross revenue actually received by Content.ad in a given calendar month from advertisements displayed on the Publisher Websites via the Content.ad Network and Content.ad Widget. We couldn’t find any information regarding MGID’s revenue share. We hope to provide an update on the same once we’ve more information.
Content.ad Ad Quality vs MGID Ad Quality
While content.ad has more advertisers in Europe, Mgid has more advertiser base in South America and Latam. The ad quality of both these networks is similar when compared with more low-cost CPC ads which direct to traffic arbitrage sites. So, the global fill varies accordingly and so is the ad quality. When compared with Outbrain and Taboola, their ads look more spammy.
Content.ad CPM Rates vs Mgid CPM Rates
Mgid CPC rates vary from 1- 5 cents and are higher for tier 1 traffic. News and viral websites tend to have the highest CTR with Mgid and thus they perform quite well in these niches with average ad RPM going as high as USD 1.
While the CPC for native ads hugely varies based on the traffic and conversions, one can expect the Content.ad CPC to be around 3 cents to 6 cents with Content.ad. Based on the page CTR, the Content.ad RPM can be anywhere around $0.5-$2 or even more in some cases. The good thing about native ad networks are that they are CPC based and not CPA based. However, the CPC varies greatly based on the traffic quality and the conversions a website is able to bring.
Content.ad Dashboard vs Mgid Dashboard
When comparing Content.ad vs Mgid, it is important to take a look at their dashboard and reporting panel. Both the networks have good UI and tons of features to further break down the reporting segment based on top performing geos. Their dashboards offer an easy to use navigation and segmentation feature for stats and reports.
Content.ad Earnings Report vs Mgid Earnings Report
Content.ad provides some steady earnings to its publishers if you’ve good volume of tier one traffic. Their competitive revenue share has been proven beneficial to publishers and advertisers. Content.ad also performs great for any niche type website since they have good advertiser base in that segment. While Mgid performs well for any type of viral site. Most of the viral sites make good revenue with Mgid ads.
Content.ad vs MGID: Best Performing Geographies
More advertiser demand definitely increases the cost per click. On the other hand, less publisher’s supply increases the cost per click. Getting an idea of the best performing geos can actually help you make higher revenue by running multiple native ad networks in the same ad position. Content.ad has strong CPC and CPMs for traffic from countries like UK, Spain, France, Italy and other EU countries. MGID has presence in Africa and South American countries.
Content.ad Payment Structure vs MGID Payment Structure
Content.ad pays his publishers on a net 30 basis; it assures good profit for publishers if they have niche sites with EU traffic. It is possible to withdraw earning after every 30 days. It is important to have a minimum threshold of $100 before taking the payment. Content.ad has numerous payment methods, the most popular being PayPal. Be rest assured that Content.ad is a legit ad network working with thousands of premium publishers worldwide.
MGID also pays its publishers in NET 30 days once you’ve $100 is payable earnings. Both the networks pay its publishers on time and thus have no record of scams.
Native ads is the fastest growing ad format currently and is estimated to overtake banner advertisement in the next 4-5 years. Viewers are tired of traditional forms of advertisements that pop out every time a website is opened. It makes online advertisements more engaging and imparts a high brand engagement. More and more brands are slowing turning towards native advertising and the industry is rapidly growing. Also, affiliate marketers promote their products through native ads. Both MGID and Content.ad stands a good chance to consolidate their market share and emerge victorious in segments they capitalize on. Also, we look forward to native video ad inventory from these ad networks. Hope you liked the MGID vs Content.ad comparison.