Skip to main content

Head to head · Best Native Ad Networks for Publishers

Sharethrough vs Teads

Teads scores higher overall (3.8 vs 3.5), but the right pick depends on which dimension matters most to you.

Sharethrough scores 3.5 out of 5 and Teads scores 3.8 out of 5, compared across overall score, capability, publisher fit, total cost of ownership, target market and pricing.
CriterionSharethroughFair FitTeadsStrong Choice
Overall score3.53.8— higher score for Teads
Capability45% of composite3.53.8— higher score for Teads
Publisher fit40% of composite4.04.5— higher score for Teads
Total cost of ownership15% of composite2.5— higher score for Sharethrough2.0
Best forMid-Market, EnterpriseMid-Market, Enterprise
PricingStandard SSP fee/rev-shareCustom enterprise pricing typically based on CPM (Cost Per Mille) or CPCV (Cost Per Completed View) models; includes performance-based outcome options.

Sharethrough

  • Excellent rendering quality
  • Broad DSP demand
  • Easy integration
  • Lower margins than direct sales
  • Dependence on programmatic trends
  • Strict quality requirements
Full Sharethrough review
Visit Sharethrough

Teads

  • Only requires one ads.txt to get started
  • All demand is unique
  • Adheres to Coalition of Better Ads standards
  • Bit of a learning curve
  • Support limited to an account manager or FAQs
Full Teads review
Visit Teads

Common questions

Is Sharethrough or Teads better?

Teads scores higher overall (3.8 vs 3.5), but the right pick depends on which dimension matters most to you. Sharethrough scores 3.5/5 and Teads scores 3.8/5 on Benchmark Grid's independent assessment. Scores are set editorially by SODP against published criteria and cannot be purchased.

Which is cheaper, Sharethrough or Teads?

On total cost of ownership — which covers pricing transparency, entry cost, implementation, hidden-fee risk and ongoing cost — Sharethrough scores 2.5/5 and Teads scores 2.0/5. 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.

Next UpPerfect follow-up read