Appcast vs. Kevel

It has allowed me to streamline my job ad buying and selling process all in one dashboard.

Incentivized

For ad serving, implementing client-side header bidding with prebid was actually easier with Kevel than it is with Google Ad Manager in most cases, particularly for display advertising. I found though that with more complex integrations (like video), there were more solutions and code snippets available with other larger ad servers (Google).

Incentivized

• Makes it easy to manage job feeds.
• Makes it easy to manage traffic acquisition from multiple publishers.
• Easy to use reporting dashboard for you and your customers.

Incentivized

• More personable team that can address customizations needed to the product.
• Easy to use interface.
• Frequent product updates with notifications via email.
• Well documented API.

Incentivized

• Need to be more open to suggestions from clients.
• Need to get better customer service turnaround time.
• Need more knowledgeable staff.

Incentivized

• User interface could be faster to load.

Incentivized

Kevel was an easier initial implementation for header bidding with prebid. The team worked alongside us to make sure everything was operating as intended. We ultimately switched to Ads Manager to access AdX demand and other features that were not possible with Kevel (for instance, EBDA). There are benefits to both but I appreciated the attention we got from Kevel support when we were first working through the implementation. We are still using Kevel for many things, just not as our primary display advertising ad server.

Incentivized

• Positive sales margins.
• Positive time allocation.

Incentivized

• Kevel enabled us to get up and running with client side header bidding when our team was still small and the technology was still new. This improved our ability to monetize our inventory.

Incentivized