Head to head · Best Video Monetization Platforms
Meta Audience Network vs Open.Video
Meta Audience Network and Open.Video score within 0.2 of each other, so the decision comes down to fit rather than quality.
| Criterion | Meta Audience NetworkFair Fit | Open.VideoFair Fit |
|---|---|---|
| Overall score | 3.3 | 3.3 |
| Capability45% of composite | 3.5— higher score for Meta Audience Network | 2.9 |
| Publisher fit40% of composite | 3.0 | 3.5— higher score for Open.Video |
| Total cost of ownership15% of composite | 3.4 | 4.1— higher score for Open.Video |
| Best for | Small, Mid-Market, Enterprise | Small, Mid-Market |
| Pricing | Revenue share (CPM) | No upfront subscription fee; platform access is provided through the Ezoic ecosystem with optional programmatic ad monetization. |
Meta Audience Network
- Access to Facebook/Meta's enormous advertiser demand pool
- Advanced audience targeting using Meta's first-party data
- Strong CPMs for US and major market audiences
- Requires compliance with Meta's publisher policies — strict and can change
- Privacy concerns around Meta data integration
- CPMs outside US and Europe significantly lower
Open.Video
- Content syndication generates video views and revenue beyond own site
- Revenue earned both from own-site video and syndicated content
- Integrated with Ezoic platform for enrolled publishers
- Only accessible within Ezoic ecosystem
- Content syndication means less control over where your videos appear
- Revenue per syndicated view is low
Common questions
Is Meta Audience Network or Open.Video better?
Meta Audience Network and Open.Video score within 0.2 of each other, so the decision comes down to fit rather than quality. Meta Audience Network scores 3.3/5 and Open.Video scores 3.3/5 on Benchmark Grid's independent assessment. Scores are set editorially by SODP against published criteria and cannot be purchased.
Which is cheaper, Meta Audience Network or Open.Video?
On total cost of ownership — which covers pricing transparency, entry cost, implementation, hidden-fee risk and ongoing cost — Meta Audience Network scores 3.4/5 and Open.Video scores 4.1/5. A higher score means better value, not a lower sticker price.
How are these scores calculated?
Each tool is assessed across 12 criteria grouped into 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 rankings.
Still deciding?
Answer four questions about your publication and we'll recommend a full stack — with the reasoning for each pick and what it will cost.
Both tools are scored in Best Video Monetization Platforms. See alternatives to Meta Audience Network or alternatives to Open.Video.
