MGID vs Sharethrough
MGID
Global native advertising platform driving publisher revenue and brand performance via AI-driven targeting
Publishers using it: 66 · incl. Al Jazeera, ANSA, El Comercio
Sharethrough
Enhancing the programmatic ecosystem with human-centric native advertising.
Publishers using it: 22 · incl. E. W. Scripps, Forbes, Hearst
Publishers running both: 2
Last verified Nov 11, 2026
At a glance
- MGID scores 3.7/5 and Sharethrough scores 3.5/5 in Benchmark Grid's independent native ad networks benchmark, both assessed on the same 9 criteria.
- The widest gaps are reader experience & page speed (MGID 3.2, Sharethrough 4.4) and reporting, reconciliation & payout reliability (MGID 3.4, Sharethrough 2.4); they are within 0.3 on 1 of 9 criteria.
- MGID is built for small and mid-market publishers; Sharethrough for mid-market and enterprise.
- On total cost of ownership MGID scores 3.4 and Sharethrough 2.5 (higher means better value, not a lower price).
- In our tracking 66 publishers use MGID and 22 use Sharethrough; 2 run both.
- Scores last verified 11 Nov 2026. Vendors cannot pay for a score or a position.
Where they differ
MGID is stronger on reporting, reconciliation & payout reliability (3.4 vs 2.4) and recommendation widget performance (3.6 vs 3.0).
Sharethrough is stronger on reader experience & page speed (4.4 vs 3.2) and formats & integration (4.3 vs 3.7).
Which one fits
Choose MGID if…
- You publish at small and mid-market scale.
- You weight reporting, reconciliation & payout reliability, recommendation widget performance and publisher control over placements heavily — MGID leads on those in this benchmark.
Choose Sharethrough if…
- You publish at mid-market and enterprise scale.
- You weight reader experience & page speed, formats & integration and revenue yield & demand quality heavily — Sharethrough leads on those in this benchmark.
Also weighing these
The nearest-scored tools to MGID and Sharethrough in this benchmark, listed A to Z.
- 3.7DianomiA premium native advertising platform for high-income business and finance audiencesRead review
- 3.8EquativIndependent end-to-end media platform for unified ad serving and programmatic native monetizationRead review
- 3.5Life360 AdsPremium native and high-impact ad platform for publishers, now part of Life360Read review
- 3.9TeadsThe global omnichannel outcomes platform for high-impact video, CTV, and AI-driven advertising on the open internet.Read review
All 10 scored tools are in Best Native 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.
Running both (2): Listín Diario, VentureBeat
Head to head
| Criterion | MGID | Sharethrough |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue yield & demand quality16% of capability | 3.8 | 4.2 |
| Ad quality & content standards12% of capability | 3.4 | 3.8 |
| Publisher control over placements12% of capability | 3.5 | 3.0 |
| Recommendation widget performance12% of capability | 3.6 | 3.0 |
| Commercial terms transparency10% of capability | 2.4 | 2.6 |
| Formats & integration10% of capability | 3.7 | 4.3 |
| Reader experience & page speed10% of capability | 3.2 | 4.4 |
| Reporting, reconciliation & payout reliability10% of capability | 3.4 | 2.4 |
| Privacy & standards compliance8% of capability | 3.6 | 3.2 |
| Capability45% of composite | 3.4 | 3.5 |
| Publisher fit40% of composite | 4.0 | 4.0 |
| Total cost of ownership15% of composite | 3.4 | 2.5 |
Cost of ownership
| Sub-score | MGID | Sharethrough |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing transparency | 2.8 | 0.9 |
| Entry cost | 3.2 | 0.9 |
| Implementation cost | 4.1 | 4.0 |
| Hidden-fee risk | 3.2 | 4.0 |
| Ongoing cost | 3.7 | 2.7 |
MGID pricing
Free for publishers; paid on a performance basis (CPC) with a $100 minimum payout, smaller balances rolling to the next cycle. Advertisers pay via CPC/CPM auction.
Sharethrough pricing
Standard SSP fee/rev-share
What users say
MGID
8 positive · 22 neutral · 5 negative
Sharethrough
13 positive · 7 neutral · 4 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.
MGID scores 3.7 and Sharethrough scores 3.5 in Benchmark Grid's independent Best Native Ad Networks for Publishers benchmark (benchmarkgrid.com/vs/mgid/sharethrough, verified Nov 11, 2026)
Common questions
How do MGID and Sharethrough differ?
MGID is stronger on reporting, reconciliation & payout reliability (3.4 vs 2.4) and recommendation widget performance (3.6 vs 3.0). Sharethrough is stronger on reader experience & page speed (4.4 vs 3.2) and formats & integration (4.3 vs 3.7). 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, MGID or Sharethrough?
On total cost of ownership — pricing transparency, entry cost, implementation, hidden-fee risk and ongoing cost — MGID scores 3.4/5 and Sharethrough scores 2.5/5. 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 (9 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 Native Ad Networks for Publishers. See alternatives to MGID or alternatives to Sharethrough.
Weighing a third option? Add a tool to this comparison.
Where to next
Four questions, and a scored stack across every benchmark — not just Best Native Ad Networks for Publishers
Every scored tool in Best Native Ad Networks for Publishers, with the criteria behind each number
Every category, independently scored
Related comparisons
Other head-to-heads publishers look at in Best Native Ad Networks for Publishers.
