We compared ironSource and Google AdMob based on our user's reviews in several parameters.
ironSource and Google AdMob both receive positive feedback on ROI and customer support. ironSource is praised for its user engagement, ad monetization, and analytics tools, while Google AdMob is commended for its targeting options and integration with Google services. ironSource users mention the platform's pricing flexibility and simplicity, while Google AdMob users appreciate its user-friendly interface and prompt customer service. Both platforms have areas for improvement, with ironSource users suggesting enhancements to UI, ad delivery efficiency, and reporting features, while Google AdMob users mention the need for improved ad targeting and more transparency for advertisers. The deployment and setup timeframes are mentioned by users for both platforms, with varying feedback on the duration required.
Features: ironSource's valuable features include its ability to increase user engagement, extensive network of ad placements, and comprehensive analytics. In comparison, Google AdMob offers extensive targeting options, user-friendly interface, comprehensive analytics, effective monetization capabilities, and strong integration with other Google services.
Pricing and ROI: ironSource's setup cost is praised for being low and accompanied by a straightforward setup process. Users find the pricing reasonable and competitive, with flexible licensing arrangements. In comparison, users have discussed Google AdMob's pricing, setup cost, and licensing without directly reviewing them., The ROI from ironSource was reported as positive, with users experiencing growth and increased revenue. Ad monetization and app performance improved. For Google AdMob, the ROI was highly satisfactory.
Room for Improvement: ironSource can improve its user interface, ad delivery efficiency, and reporting features. On the other hand, Google AdMob needs to enhance ad targeting capabilities, user interface, ad delivery, revenue optimization, and provide more transparency and control for advertisers.
Deployment and customer support: Based on user feedback, it can be inferred that ironSource users have concerns about the timeframes for deployment, setup, and implementation. In contrast, Google AdMob users have provided specific timelines, with one user taking three months for deployment and another taking a week for both deployment and setup., ironSource's customer service is commendable, providing prompt and effective assistance. Users express satisfaction with their responsive, professional, and knowledgeable support team. On the other hand, Google AdMob's customer service is satisfactory, with users content with their prompt and effective assistance and reliable support team.
The summary above is based on user interviews we conducted recently with ironSource and Google AdMob users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
Earn 20 points
Google AdMob is ranked 1st in App Monetization Platforms while ironSource is ranked 3rd in App Monetization Platforms. Google AdMob is rated 0.0, while ironSource is rated 0.0. On the other hand, Google AdMob is most compared with Unity Ads, StartApp Ad Platform, InMobi In-App Advertising, Chartboost and AdPumb, whereas ironSource is most compared with Unity Ads, Fyber, Chartboost, StartApp Ad Platform and Ionic.
See our list of best App Monetization Platforms vendors.
We monitor all App Monetization Platforms reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
