Skip to main content

At a glance

  • Ezoic scores 4.3/5 and Freestar scores 3.8/5 in Benchmark Grid's independent ad networks benchmark, both assessed on the same 10 criteria.
  • The widest gaps are eligibility & onboarding (Ezoic 4.2, Freestar 1.5) and payment terms & reliability (Ezoic 4.2, Freestar 2.5); they are within 0.3 on 5 of 10 criteria.
  • Both are built for mid-market and enterprise publishers.
  • On total cost of ownership Ezoic scores 3.8 and Freestar 2.2 (higher means better value, not a lower price).
  • In our tracking 13 publishers use Ezoic and 39 use Freestar.
  • Scores last verified 11 Nov 2026. Vendors cannot pay for a score or a position.

Where they differ

Ezoic is stronger on eligibility & onboarding (4.2 vs 1.5), payment terms & reliability (4.2 vs 2.5) and page speed & Core Web Vitals impact (4.6 vs 3.0).

Freestar is stronger on ad quality & brand safety controls (4.5 vs 3.0).

Which one fits

Choose Ezoic if…

  • You publish at mid-market and enterprise scale.
  • You weight eligibility & onboarding, payment terms & reliability and page speed & Core Web Vitals impact heavily — Ezoic leads on those in this benchmark.

Choose Freestar if…

  • You publish at mid-market and enterprise scale.
  • You weight ad quality & brand safety controls, integration & ad-ops workload and demand access & header bidding heavily — Freestar leads on those in this benchmark.

Also weighing these

The nearest-scored tools to Ezoic and Freestar in this benchmark, listed A to Z.

All 36 scored tools are in Best Ad Networks for Publishers.

Who uses them

Publishers we have detected running each tool, from ads.txt, site code and published case studies. Agencies, brands and vendors are excluded.

Head to head

CriterionEzoicFreestar
Revenue yield & RPM uplift16% of capability4.64.6
Demand access & header bidding14% of capability4.54.7
Ad quality & brand safety controls12% of capability3.04.5
Publisher control & transparency12% of capability3.03.0
Page speed & Core Web Vitals impact10% of capability4.63.0
Payment terms & reliability10% of capability4.22.5
Integration & ad-ops workload8% of capability3.84.5
Reporting & reconciliation8% of capability3.53.5
Consent & privacy readiness5% of capability3.53.5
Eligibility & onboarding5% of capability4.21.5
Capability45% of composite3.93.7
Publisher fit40% of composite4.94.5
Total cost of ownership15% of composite3.82.2

Cost of ownership

Sub-scoreEzoicFreestar
Pricing transparency3.51.3
Entry cost4.50.9
Implementation cost3.02.6
Hidden-fee risk4.03.6
Ongoing cost3.82.6

Ezoic pricing

Standard plan is free via a 10% revenue share model; Ezoic Premium involves a monthly subscription fee based on a site's revenue tier and guaranteed ROI.

Freestar pricing

Operates on a transparent revenue-share model; custom enterprise pricing typically requires a minimum of 1M to 5M monthly pageviews and 12 months of historical traffic data.

What users say

Ezoic

20 positive · 43 neutral · 30 negative

Freestar

10 positive · 9 neutral · 2 negative

Mentions we could not tie to a real user, and those flagged as promotional, are excluded. Sentiment is opinion, and is independent of the verified publisher adoptions above.

Ezoic scores 4.3 and Freestar scores 3.8 in Benchmark Grid's independent Best Ad Networks for Publishers benchmark (benchmarkgrid.com/vs/ezoic/freestar, verified Nov 11, 2026)

Common questions

How do Ezoic and Freestar differ?

Ezoic is stronger on eligibility & onboarding (4.2 vs 1.5), payment terms & reliability (4.2 vs 2.5) and page speed & Core Web Vitals impact (4.6 vs 3.0). Freestar is stronger on ad quality & brand safety controls (4.5 vs 3.0). Neither is better in the abstract — which one suits you depends on which of those dimensions carries the most weight in your operation.

Which is cheaper, Ezoic or Freestar?

On total cost of ownership — pricing transparency, entry cost, implementation, hidden-fee risk and ongoing cost — Ezoic scores 3.8/5 and Freestar scores 2.2/5. A higher score means better value, not a lower sticker price.

How are these scores calculated?

Each tool is assessed against its category's published criteria (10 in this benchmark), which make up Capability (45% of the composite), Publisher fit (40%) and Total cost of ownership (15%). Assessment is carried out by SODP's editorial team against a published methodology. Vendors cannot pay for inclusion, scores or positions.

Share:

Both tools are scored in Best Ad Networks for Publishers. See alternatives to Ezoic or alternatives to Freestar.

Weighing a third option? Add a tool to this comparison.

Related comparisons

Other head-to-heads publishers look at in Best Ad Networks for Publishers.

Another SideWhich ad network is better for publishers with less than 500...