Head to head · Best Ad Yield Management Platforms for Publishers
OKO vs Sortable
Sortable scores higher overall (3.2 vs 3.0), but the right pick depends on which dimension matters most to you.
| Criterion | OKOMarginal Fit | SortableMarginal Fit |
|---|---|---|
| Overall score | 3.0 | 3.2— higher score for Sortable |
| Capability45% of composite | 2.8 | 3.3— higher score for Sortable |
| Publisher fit40% of composite | 3.5 | 3.5 |
| Total cost of ownership15% of composite | 2.2 | 2.2 |
| Best for | Mid-Market, Enterprise | Mid-Market, Enterprise |
| Pricing | Custom or revenue share pricing | Subscription or revenue share; custom quote |
Common questions
Is OKO or Sortable better?
Sortable scores higher overall (3.2 vs 3.0), but the right pick depends on which dimension matters most to you. OKO scores 3.0/5 and Sortable scores 3.2/5 on Benchmark Grid's independent assessment. Scores are set editorially by SODP against published criteria and cannot be purchased.
Which is cheaper, OKO or Sortable?
On total cost of ownership — which covers pricing transparency, entry cost, implementation, hidden-fee risk and ongoing cost — OKO scores 2.2/5 and Sortable scores 2.2/5. 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 Ad Yield Management Platforms for Publishers. See alternatives to OKO or alternatives to Sortable.
