How I check a network before it goes in a table
Most comparison pages about adult ad networks copy their numbers from each other, which is why the same outdated minimum deposit can appear on twenty sites at once. This page describes the sequence I run before any figure reaches a table here, including the points at which a figure gets dropped instead of published. It is written so you can repeat it and catch me being wrong.
Step 1: confirm the platform sells what it claims to sell
Before anything else I establish what kind of business the platform actually is. An ad network sells impressions or clicks at a bid you set, against inventory belonging to publishers who get paid per placement. A visitor package seller delivers a count of sessions for a flat fee. Both categories rank for the same search terms and use nearly identical wording, and the single reliable tell is whether the interface has a bid field. Platforms without one do not enter the comparison at all, and the distinction is explained in full on the home page.
Step 2: read the funding page, not the landing page
Minimum deposits are the most frequently misreported figure in this niche because they vary by payment method and the marketing page rarely says so. I look for the operator's own funding or billing documentation and record the minimum per method, not the headline. Where the help centre answers the question with a variation of "it depends on your payment method", that is what the table says, because inventing a single number would be tidier and false. ClickAdilla is the clearest example of this and its row is written accordingly.
Step 3: separate the entry number from the working number
A minimum deposit opens an account. It does not fund a campaign, and the gap between the two is where new advertisers lose money. Where an operator publishes its own recommended starting budget, I record both figures and put the gap in the text rather than burying it. Push campaigns get an extra note because networks reserve part of the balance for clicks that arrive after the main delivery window, so the balance you need sitting idle is a multiple of your intended daily spend rather than equal to it.
Step 4: verify the format list against the buying interface
Format lists inflate. A platform that offers thirteen formats to publishers may open six of them to advertisers, and press coverage rarely distinguishes the two. I record formats that are available to buy, note where a count comes from the operator's own formats page, and drop any format I cannot find documented. Where a format is unusual enough that most competitors do not sell it, that is noted in the text rather than turned into a score.
Step 5: check the inventory type
This column decides more than price does. Owner-operated inventory means the platform sells space on sites its parent company controls, which is exclusive but exposed to whatever happens to those sites. Exchange demand means wider GEO coverage with no guarantee that a specific placement survives the month. Marketplace models let you buy a named site and a named zone for a fixed period, which changes the whole optimisation problem. I confirm which model applies from the operator's own description of its supply.
Step 6: take regulatory claims to primary documents
Anything touching law goes back to the source. The constitutional position on US age verification comes from the Supreme Court opinion in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton and from the Congressional Research Service analysis, not from an SEO article summarising either. State counts come from a tracker with a date attached, and the page says which date, because that number changes every legislative session. The same rule applies to the UK, French and Australian positions.
Step 7: decide what to do with disagreement
Sources conflict constantly in this niche. When they do, the page publishes the range and names the disagreement rather than choosing whichever figure reads better. When a claim appears in exactly one secondary source with no primary confirmation, it does not get published at all. When a figure exists but I cannot date it, it is treated as missing. This is the least satisfying part of the process and the part that most distinguishes a checked page from a rewritten one.
Legal claims are also checked against the standard this site holds itself to, which is written out on the advertising standards page.
What this routine does not cover
Fill rate by GEO, real support response times and the practical quality of in-stream inventory cannot be established from documentation, and this site does not pretend to have measured them. Those gaps are stated where they matter rather than papered over with confident adjectives. The rules governing that honesty, along with the correction process, are on the editorial policy page, and the commercial arrangements that sit alongside all of it are on the affiliate disclosure page.
If you run one of the platforms covered and a figure here is wrong, the fastest route to a fix is the editorial address on the contact page with a link to your own documentation.
This routine is the reason the site is narrow rather than encyclopaedic, which is the trade explained on the about page, and the full index of what came out of it is on the sitemap. The legal wrapper around all of it sits in the terms and conditions, the privacy policy and the cookie policy.