Broadsign vs. Kevel

Very suitable for large networks and projects requiring enhanced functionality. less suitable for small networks as the learning curve might be considerable.

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

• 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

• User interface could be faster to load.

Incentivized

We analyzed other solutions in 2008 but were convinced from the get go Broadsign would be a perfect fit for our needs in the long run. 15 years later our choice has been proven right.

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

• 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