Head to head · Best Video Monetization Platforms
Nexxen vs Open.Video
Nexxen and Open.Video score within 0.2 of each other, so the decision comes down to fit rather than quality.
| Criterion | NexxenFair Fit | Open.VideoFair Fit |
|---|---|---|
| Overall score | 3.3 | 3.3 |
| Capability45% of composite | 3.4— higher score for Nexxen | 2.9 |
| Publisher fit40% of composite | 4.0— higher score for Nexxen | 3.5 |
| Total cost of ownership15% of composite | 1.2 | 4.1— higher score for Open.Video |
| Best for | Enterprise | Small, Mid-Market |
| Pricing | Custom programmatic pricing; typically based on a percentage of ad spend (take rate) or platform licensing fees. | No upfront subscription fee; platform access is provided through the Ezoic ecosystem with optional programmatic ad monetization. |
Nexxen
- Connects publishers with prime advertisers through programmatic advertising
- CTRL self-service platform for inventory packaging and selling
- Spearad platform for granular ad experience customization (break length, slots, pricing)
- Only supports AVOD — no SVOD or TVOD
- Requires publishers to forego other video players during its term
- Takes ~30% cut of ad inventory — significantly higher than some competitors
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 Nexxen or Open.Video better?
Nexxen and Open.Video score within 0.2 of each other, so the decision comes down to fit rather than quality. Nexxen 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, Nexxen or Open.Video?
On total cost of ownership — which covers pricing transparency, entry cost, implementation, hidden-fee risk and ongoing cost — Nexxen scores 1.2/5 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 Nexxen or alternatives to Open.Video.
