by Look, if you’re running mobile apps in 2026, you know how much has changed since even three or four years ago. The ad network landscape keeps shifting, privacy regulations keep tightening, and what worked last year might tank your revenue this year. I’ve been reviewing and testing these networks for years now, and I wanted to give you an honest breakdown of where things actually stand right now.
The tricky part about writing this in 2026 is that everyone’s dealing with some version of iOS privacy updates, Android’s ongoing privacy changes, and advertisers who are honestly getting smarter about where they spend money. Some networks have adapted beautifully. Others are struggling. A few have actually become more valuable because they’ve pivoted their approach entirely.
I’m not going to sugarcoat anything here. I’ll tell you what genuinely works, what the real downsides are, and most importantly, who each network actually works for. Because there’s no one-size-fits-all answer — it depends on your traffic type, geography, app category, and honestly, your tolerance for dealing with support issues.
Quick Comparison Table
| Network | Best For | Min Payout | CPM Range (Tier 1/Tier 3) | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Google AdMob | High-volume apps, mixed traffic | $10 | $8-35 / $1-8 | 8.5/10 |
| Meta Audience Network | Apps with US/Western traffic | $100 | $10-40 / $2-10 | 7.5/10 |
| AppLovin MAX | Multiplexing, mediation optimization | $0 | $12-50 / $3-12 | 8.8/10 |
| ironSource (Unity Ads) | Games, user acquisition, mediation | $5 | $10-45 / $2-10 | 8.2/10 |
| Payout Network | Tier 2/3 traffic, emerging markets | $50 | $3-15 / $0.50-5 | 6.8/10 |
| Chartboost | Mobile games, rewarded video | $25 | $8-28 / $1.50-7 | 7.8/10 |
| Vungle | Video-heavy apps, emerging markets | $5 | $6-25 / $1-6 | 7.4/10 |
| Inmobi | Asian traffic, native ads, scale | $25 | $2-12 / $0.50-4 | 7.1/10 |
| Moloco CPI Network | Performance marketing, UA-focused | $0 | $5-20 / $1-6 | 7.6/10 |
| Fyber Marketplace | Multi-format monetization, Europe | $20 | $7-30 / $1.50-7 | 7.7/10 |
1. Google AdMob
Let’s start with the eight-hundred-pound gorilla. AdMob is Google’s direct ad network and mediation platform, and it’s still the foundation for most app publishers’ revenue in 2026. If you’re not using it, you’re probably leaving money on the table.
AdMob works best for publishers with high-volume apps across multiple categories. If you’ve got decent traffic volume — say 50,000+ daily impressions — AdMob gives you access to Google’s massive advertiser base. The network has access to campaigns from basically every major advertiser on Earth, which means fill rates are typically excellent.
For Tier 1 traffic (US, Canada, UK, Western Europe), expect CPMs in the $8-35 range depending on format and category. Games tend to land on the higher end. Tier 3 traffic (India, Southeast Asia, Latin America) usually runs $1-8. I’ve seen health and finance apps in Tier 1 hitting $40+ CPMs, but that’s not the norm.
The real advantages: fill rates are almost always above 95%, Google’s fraud detection is legitimately solid, payments are reliable, and their mediation platform integrates with most other networks. The UI has actually gotten better in the last couple years. Support exists, though it’s increasingly automated and honestly frustrating if you hit an issue. The biggest plus is that AdMob scales — if your app suddenly gets 10 million daily impressions, you won’t run out of ads to serve.
The downsides are meaningful though. First, Google takes 30-32% cut on most placements. Second, they’ve gradually tightened their policies around behavioral targeting, which has compressed CPMs for apps relying on fine-grained audience data. Third, if Google decides your app violates their policies, you can get suspended with minimal explanation and almost no appeal process. I know publishers who’ve lost six-figure monthly revenue to sudden suspensions with vague reasoning. Fourth, their reporting dashboard is functional but not particularly insightful — you get impressions, clicks, revenue, but not much diagnostic detail about what’s actually happening. Fifth, they’ve been pushing harder toward in-app bidding, which is good for competitiveness but creates complexity in your mediation setup.
Skip AdMob if you’re monetizing content that’s gray-area in their policies (anything suggestive, controversial, or questionable), or if you’re only running a few thousand impressions monthly — the economics don’t work for ultra-small publishers.
2. AppLovin MAX
AppLovin MAX is honestly the most interesting platform in the ecosystem right now, and I’ve watched it evolve from a solid mediation layer into something that actually competes with AdMob on monetization quality. MAX is their mediation and monetization platform, and they’ve aggressively built out direct demand and optimized their in-app bidding algorithm.
MAX works best for publishers who want to optimize hard and don’t mind the complexity. If you’re serious about multiplexing — serving ads from multiple networks simultaneously and letting them bid against each other — MAX is built for this. They also own AppLovin’s direct advertiser network, which has gotten really competitive. For game publishers especially, MAX has become legitimately attractive because their direct demand tends to be performance-marketing focused (user acquisition campaigns) which often pays better than brand advertising.
Tier 1 CPMs on MAX typically run $12-50 for rewarded video, $10-35 for interstitials. Tier 3 ranges from $3-12 for rewarded. These numbers are actually competitive with or better than AdMob, which is why I’ve seen publishers drop AdMob fill to 20-30% and rely more heavily on MAX. They also have zero minimum payout, which is nice if you’re starting out.
The big advantage is their algorithm is genuinely smart. MAX learns about your inventory and optimizes placement in real time. Their in-app bidding works well. The mediation layer is comprehensive — you can hook in basically any other network. Fill rates have improved dramatically since 2024. Their dashboard actually shows you useful diagnostics. And their support team is responsive, which matters because you’ll have questions.
The challenge is complexity. Setting up MAX properly requires understanding mediation, waterfall management, and floor prices. If you just want to plug something in and forget about it, MAX isn’t your friend — you’ll undermonetize. There’s also a learning curve on understanding when AppLovin’s direct demand is actually the best option versus when to rely on other networks. Their cut is similar to Google (around 30%), so no advantage there. And honestly, while they’ve improved, they don’t quite have Google’s scale of advertiser demand yet — especially for brand-focused campaigns. For certain app categories (health, finance, sensitive content), they have fewer direct buyers than Google.
Skip MAX if you don’t want to spend time optimizing mediation, or if your audience is purely brand-conscious (like a high-end luxury app) — Google’s advertiser base is more suitable there.
3. Meta Audience Network
Meta’s Audience Network connects apps with Facebook and Instagram advertisers. It’s been through some rough patches, but 2026 finds it in a pretty solid state, especially if you’re monetizing Western audiences.
This network works best for apps with US, Canadian, and Western European traffic. Meta’s advertiser base is massive and heavily focused on performance marketing (e-commerce, gaming, apps). If your app attracts advertisers’ target demographics, Meta can be excellent. They’ve also made big improvements to their ad quality — aggressive enforcement against predatory ads has actually made the network more legitimate.
Tier 1 CPMs for rewarded video commonly hit $10-40. Interstitials run $5-25. For Tier 3 traffic, expect $2-10. I’ve seen some publishers with high-engagement gaming apps push Tier 1 CPMs into the $45-50 range, but that’s not typical. The minimum payout is $100, which is reasonable.
The real strengths: Meta’s bidding is aggressive and competitive. They pay reasonably fast (weekly payments available). Their enforcement of ad quality has gotten strict, which sounds negative but actually means fewer bad ads damaging your app experience. Fill rates for Tier 1 traffic are usually above 85%. Their audience insights are decent if you’re trying to understand who’s seeing what.
The serious drawbacks: Meta’s advertiser base is thinner in Tier 2 and 3 markets, so fill rates drop off a cliff there. They’ve had repeated privacy-related issues that make some advertisers cautious. Their minimum payout of $100 is higher than other networks, which creates friction if you’re testing. They’re also notorious for account suspensions with minimal explanation — I’ve had publishers told they’re suspended for “suspicious activity” with zero detail on what that means. When (not if) you need support, it’s basically nonexistent. And their algorithm can be unpredictable; sometimes inventory that worked great suddenly dries up. Also, there’s inherent advertiser overlap with Google, so serving both can sometimes cannibalize CPMs rather than complement them.
Skip Meta Audience Network if your traffic is primarily non-Western, or if you need reliable support and clear policies.
4. ironSource (Unity Ads)
ironSource merged with Unity in 2023, and the combined entity — still operating under the Unity Ads banner in most contexts — is a powerhouse for game publishers. This is one of the few networks where the consolidation actually improved the product.
ironSource works best for mobile game publishers, especially those also doing user acquisition. They have integrated game analytics, mediation, and direct demand that specifically understands game monetization. If you’re running a casual or hyper-casual game with good retention metrics, ironSource should absolutely be in your mix.
CPMs are competitive: Tier 1 typically runs $10-45 for rewarded video (which is the dominant format in games). Tier 3 ranges $2-10. What’s interesting is their willingness to pay based on user quality signals, not just geography. A highly engaged player in an emerging market might generate a better CPM than a low-engagement user in the US. Minimum payout is only $5.
The advantages are substantial. Their mediation platform was already good, and integrating with Unity’s data has made it smarter. They understand gaming economics in a way other networks don’t — they know LTV, retention metrics, and monetization curves matter. Their direct advertiser base for user acquisition campaigns is strong. Fill rates on rewarded video are usually excellent because gaming is such a high-value category. They’ve also built a solid marketplace where app networks can source inventory, which increases their advertiser reach.
The downsides: they’re primarily focused on games, so if you have a non-game app, their value is limited. Their support has gotten better but still lags Google. They’ve had some controversies around aggressive targeting and data collection, which worries privacy-conscious publishers. Their dashboard, while functional, isn’t as polished as AppLovin’s. And there’s some uncertainty around the Unity/ironSource integration timeline — parts of it are still rolling out. Also, their minimum payout of $5 is an advantage for small publishers, but it means they process a lot of small transactions, which can mean slow payment processing during high-volume periods.
Skip ironSource if you’re running non-game apps or if you have low-retention apps (they’re optimized for engaged audiences).
5. Chartboost
Chartboost is one of the older players in this space, and they’ve managed to stay relevant by focusing hard on games and rewarded video. They’re particularly strong in certain Asian markets.
Chartboost works best for mobile games with rewarded video monetization. They have excellent fill rates in rewarded because they’ve built relationships with game-focused advertisers. If you’re running a casual game or a mid-core title with good retention, Chartboost should definitely be tested.
Tier 1 CPMs for rewarded video typically hit $8-28. Tier 3 ranges $1.50-7. Minimum payout is $25. Their fill rates on rewarded video often exceed 90% even in smaller markets, which is impressive.
The real strength is their specialization. They understand game monetization deeply, and their direct demand (both from game studios acquiring users and from game apps buying ads) is solid. Payment reliability is good. Their integration with game engines is clean. In specific regions like Japan and Korea, they have particularly strong advertiser relationships.
The limitations are real: if you’re not running games, they’re not a great fit. For non-rewarded formats (interstitials, banners), they’re less competitive. Their dashboard is functional but basic. Support, while better than Meta, isn’t as responsive as AppLovin. They also don’t have significant scale in non-gaming categories, so if you’re trying to monetize productivity, social, or utility apps, look elsewhere. And honestly, for US-focused game publishers, AppLovin and ironSource have become more competitive in the last couple years.
Skip Chartboost unless you’re running games with rewarded video — it’s just too specialized for other categories.
6. Vungle
Vungle is a video-first network that’s stayed independent, which is relatively rare and honestly respectable. They’ve specialized in video monetization and have built a solid presence in markets where other networks have less reach.
Vungle works best for publishers with high video completion rates and users who are tolerant of video ads (games, video apps, casual content). They also have particular strength in emerging markets, especially Southeast Asia, India, and Latin America. If your traffic is geographically diverse and you want a network that performs decently outside the US/Western Europe, Vungle is worth testing.
Tier 1 CPMs range $6-25. Tier 3 ranges $1-6. Minimum payout is only $5. Fill rates are generally solid, though not quite at Google’s level.
The advantages: they’re genuinely committed to emerging markets, which means their infrastructure and advertiser relationships are good there. Their video ad quality is generally solid. Payment processing is reliable. They integrate well with mediation platforms. Their incentivized video product is solid if you’re doing virtual currency monetization.
The challenges: they don’t have Google or Meta’s scale of advertiser demand, which means CPMs in Tier 1 are generally lower than competitors. For non-video formats, they have limited offerings. Their dashboard is functional but not particularly insightful. Support is available but slower than you’d hope. They also have less sophisticated fraud detection than the giants, which means you need to monitor for invalid traffic yourself. In the last couple years, they’ve lost some market share to AppLovin and ironSource, which sucks for them but is worth knowing.
Skip Vungle if your traffic is primarily US-focused — there are better options. Also skip if you need sophisticated conversion tracking or if you’re running performance campaigns that require real-time optimization.
7. InMobi
InMobi is the Asian mobile advertising powerhouse, though they operate globally. They have deep relationships with Asian advertisers and publishers, and they understand markets that other networks treat as secondary.
InMobi works best for publishers with significant Asian traffic, or for apps launching in Asian markets. They also have excellent native ad technology, which matters if you’re trying to build a sophisticated monetization strategy. Their scale in India specifically is remarkable — if your app has even moderate traction in India, InMobi should be tested.
Tier 1 CPMs are generally lower: $2-12. Tier 3 in strong Asian markets can hit $0.50-4. Minimum payout is $25. Fill rates are decent, though they vary by region.
The real advantages: they have advertiser relationships in Asia that no other network can match. Their native ad product is genuinely sophisticated. For publishers operating primarily in India, Southeast Asia, or parts of the Middle East, they sometimes outcompete Google. They’ve also been aggressive about building machine learning infrastructure, which means their optimization is getting better. International payment options are solid.
The downsides are substantial: CPMs are notably lower than Google in most Tier 1 markets. For Western-only traffic, they’re usually not worth the complexity. Their dashboard is serviceable but not beautiful. Support can be slow and sometimes requires working through multiple time zones. Their fraud detection isn’t as aggressive as Google, which is a concern if you’re running in markets with higher invalid traffic risks. They’ve also had some privacy concerns in how they’ve collected and used data, which matters if your app serves privacy-conscious users. And honestly, while they’re strong in Asia, they’re losing some momentum to Google and ByteDance’s networks.
Skip InMobi if your traffic is primarily Western, or if you can’t tolerate lower CPMs for access to scale.
8. Payout Network
Payout Network is a name you might not recognize unless you’re publishing in Tier 2 and 3 markets. They specialize in direct publisher monetization for emerging markets, which is why they exist in a slightly different position than the other networks here.
Payout works best for publishers with significant traffic in Latin America, Eastern Europe, India, Southeast Asia, and parts of Africa. If you’re trying to monetize users in these regions and you’ve already hit the ceiling with Google and other major networks, Payout can add meaningful incremental revenue.
CPMs are what you’d expect for these markets: $3-15 for Tier 2 markets, $0.50-5 for Tier 3. Minimum payout is $50. Fill rates are actually pretty decent — often above 80%, which is respectable.
The advantages: they actually care about these markets, which shows in their product design. They have real advertiser relationships in regions where other networks treat as secondary. Payment is reliable (important for smaller markets). They’re flexible with policies for apps that wouldn’t fly with Google. Their publisher support is actually available and helpful, which is rarer than you’d think in this tier of networks.
The real limitations: they’re small compared to Google or AppLovin, so if you’re optimizing globally, the incremental revenue is usually modest. Their dashboard is basic. Ad quality isn’t always top-tier — you’ll occasionally see sketchy ads. Their minimum payout of $50 is reasonable but creates friction for testing. And honestly, they’re in a vulnerable position — if Google decides to aggressively pursue these markets, Payout gets squished.
Skip Payout if you’re running a single-market app in a major geography, or if ad quality concerns you.
9. Moloco CPI Network
Moloco is an interesting player because they’ve positioned themselves primarily as a performance marketing platform with a secondary interest in publisher monetization. This creates a unique dynamic where they’re excellent if you’re also doing user acquisition, less exciting if you’re pure monetization.
Moloco works best for publishers running games or apps with strong conversion tracking who also want to run user acquisition campaigns. If you can feed them conversion data, they’ll use it to build better targeting models, which creates a flywheel — better targeting means better advertiser ROI, which means more advertiser demand, which means higher CPMs for your inventory. They have zero minimum payout, which is nice.
CPMs typically range $5-20 for Tier 1, $1-6 for Tier 3. What’s interesting is their willingness to price based on conversion probability, not just demographics. A low-geography user who’s likely to convert might get priced higher than a high-geography user who won’t. This is smart, but it requires good conversion tracking on your end.
The advantages: if you’re serious about conversion tracking, Moloco’s targeting is genuinely good. They understand performance marketing in a way brand-focused networks don’t. The team is responsive and data-driven. They’re transparent about how they price inventory. If you also run user acquisition campaigns with them, you get synergies that create real value.
The challenges: they require sophisticated tracking, which many publishers don’t have in place. Their scale is smaller than Google or AppLovin, so CPMs in Tier 1 are often lower. For apps without strong conversion signals, they don’t add much value — you’re better off with someone else. Their dashboard is functional but not particularly beautiful. And there’s a learning curve on understanding how to optimize for their system.
Skip Moloco if you don’t have conversion tracking set up, or if you’re not willing to spend time optimizing performance.
10. Fyber Marketplace
Fyber is an interesting hybrid — partly a direct monetization platform, partly a mediation system. They’ve built a marketplace where publishers connect with advertisers, and they handle the infrastructure. This creates some unique economics compared to traditional networks.
Fyber works best for publishers in Europe (where they have particular strength), or for those who want a multi-format monetization approach (banners, interstitials, rewarded, native). Their marketplace model means you’re sometimes serving direct advertiser campaigns rather than network ads, which can create different economics.
CPMs vary but typically run $7-30 for Tier 1, $1.50-7 for Tier 3. Minimum payout is $20. Fill rates are solid, particularly in Europe where their relationships are strongest.
The advantages: their multi-format approach is genuinely sophisticated. Native ad quality is good. They have particularly strong relationships with European advertisers. The marketplace model is transparent — you can see directly what campaigns are running. Payment is reliable. Support is responsive. They’re also genuinely trying to build a sustainable business, not just maximize short-term extraction.
The downsides: they’re smaller than Google or AppLovin, which means overall demand is lower. For global publishers, their footprint outside Europe is weaker. The marketplace model is nice, but it also means inventory is less predictable than with a traditional network — sometimes demand is strong, sometimes it dries up. Their dashboard is good but lacks some of the diagnostic depth of top-tier platforms. And in Tier 1 markets, CPMs are usually lower than Google because their advertiser base is more European-focused.
Skip Fyber if you’re running a global app where consistent, predictable revenue matters more than optimizing for any particular region.
How to Actually Pick the Right Network for Your Situation
Okay, so here’s the real talk about choosing networks: there’s no single best choice. What matters is understanding your specific situation and testing honestly. Here’s how to think about this.
First, inventory assessment. What format dominates your app? Games are rewarded video optimized (ironSource, Chartboost, AppLovin). Casual content apps might be interstitial focused (Google, AppLovin, Meta). Utility apps might be banner heavy (Google, Fyber). This sounds obvious, but I see publishers running the wrong formats for their app type and wondering why CPMs suck. Match format to app first, then choose networks that excel at that format.
Second, geography. Where’s your traffic actually coming from? If it’s 80% US/Western Europe, Google and Meta should be your foundation. If it’s global with emerging market strength, you need AppLovin or ironSource in the mix because they handle Tier 2 and 3 better. If you have significant Asian traffic, InMobi shouldn’t be optional. If you’re mostly Tier 3, accept that CPMs will be lower and choose networks that don’t charge high payout minimums.
Third, app category. Games get different networks than dating apps, which are different from fitness apps. Games: ironSource, Chartboost, AppLovin. Casual content: Google, AppLovin, Meta. Niche categories (health, finance, dating): Google primarily, with careful vetting of secondary networks because many networks have restrictions. Dating apps especially need careful handling because many networks deprioritize them.
Fourth, traffic volume. If you’re under 50,000 daily impressions, micro-networks are your friend because they’re less rigid about minimums. InMobi, Vungle, and Payout work fine at small scale. If you’re over 500,000 daily impressions, you need the big platforms (Google, AppLovin, Meta) because you need the scale of demand they offer.
Fifth, patience for optimization. If you want to plug something in and forget about it, Google is your choice. If you’re willing to spend time optimizing mediation and floor prices, AppLovin is worth the effort. If you’re somewhere in the middle, a mix of Google and one secondary network is reasonable.
Sixth, risk tolerance. Google is the safest choice — lowest suspension risk, most reliable, most transparent. Meta and ironSource are moderate risk (suspensions happen but with better appeal processes). Smaller networks are higher risk because if they pivot or shut down, you lose that revenue. Diversification is your friend here.
Here’s the practical implementation: Start with Google as your foundation. This is non-negotiable for most publishers. Then add one or two secondary networks based on your specific profile. If you have games, add ironSource or AppLovin. If you’re global with emerging market traffic, add AppLovin. If you’re Western-focused, consider Meta. Test for 2-3 weeks before deciding whether to keep a network. Some networks take time to optimize, but if you’re not seeing reasonable fill and CPM after 3 weeks, move on.
Set up proper mediation — use AppLovin MAX if you want sophistication, or use Google’s mediation with direct integrations to secondary networks if you prefer simplicity. Monitor CPMs by country and format. You should be able to articulate why you’re using each network — if you can’t, drop it. Revisit this quarterly because things change.
Common Questions About Mobile Ad Networks
Q: How much do privacy changes actually hurt CPMs?
A: Significantly, but not equally across all networks. iOS privacy changes have hurt behavioral targeting broadly, which compressed CPMs maybe 20-30% across the board. Android privacy changes are doing the same thing now. But this affects everyone, so your relative positioning doesn’t change. What actually hurts is when you lose first-party data capabilities — if you can’t tell a network anything about your users, CPMs compress. Google and AppLovin handle this better because they have other signals. Meta has suffered more because they relied more on behavioral data. The real impact is that CPMs are lower than 2022, but they’ve stabilized now. You’re not losing money relative to competitors, you’re all just operating in a lower-CPM environment. Honestly, I’d rather have slightly lower CPMs with privacy-conscious users than higher CPMs with sketchy targeting.
Q: Should I use multiple networks or specialize with one?
A: Multiple networks almost always beats specializing. Google alone usually gives you 70-80% of potential revenue. Adding AppLovin or a secondary network usually adds another 15-25% (because they’re serving different inventory and have different fill patterns). I’d recommend Google + one secondary minimum. If you’re ambitious, Google + AppLovin + one category-specific network (ironSource for games, InMobi for emerging markets, etc.) is a solid three-network setup. More than three starts creating diminishing returns and management complexity.
Q: What’s actually a good CPM to expect?
A: This depends entirely on geography and category. In the US with brand advertising: $15-30 is solid, $10-15 is okay, under $10 means something’s wrong. In Western Europe: similar, maybe 10% lower. Anywhere else: expect half to two-thirds of US rates. Games tend to run 30% higher than average apps. Finance and health run 20% higher than average. Dating and social run 20% lower. Emerging markets: just accept whatever you get and focus on volume. I’ve worked with publishers getting $3 CPMs in their primary market and thinking that’s low, when actually it’s what that market supports. The right question isn’t “is my CPM good,” it’s “am I getting the CPM the market provides, or am I leaving money on the table due to poor setup.”
Q: How do I know if an ad network is ripping me off?
A: Good question. First, check their standard cut — Google and AppLovin take 30-32%, Meta takes similar. If someone’s taking more than 35%, be suspicious. Second, compare CPMs across networks. You should expect similar CPMs for similar geography and format across networks, plus or minus maybe 20%. If you’re seeing huge differences (like one network paying 2x another), either one is lying about impressions or you have an inventory quality issue. Third, check fill rates. Below 70% fill should trigger investigation — either your inventory is low quality or the network isn’t suitable. Fourth, examine payment timing. Everyone should pay within 21 days. If someone’s slower, that’s a warning sign. Fifth, talk to other publishers using the same network. Ask around in forums or networks. If multiple people report issues, that’s meaningful.
Q: How should I think about my mediation waterfall?
A: This is where many publishers leave easy money on the table. Traditional thinking is waterfall: Google at the top, secondary networks below, ordered by historical CPM. But actually, if you’re using in-app bidding (which AppLovin and Google both support), the order doesn’t matter — everything bids simultaneously. This is better because it creates true competition. If you’re not using in-app bidding, order networks by expected fill rate first, then by expected CPM. You want to maximize the chance of serving an ad before optimizing for price. But really, you should be using in-app bidding. It’s better economics.
Q: What should I actually be measuring to optimize?
A: Most publishers measure the wrong thing. They focus on CPM, which is just one variable. What you should be measuring: estimated revenue per thousand impressions (eRPM) = total revenue / impressions * 1000. This accounts for fill rate. CPM is useless without knowing fill rate. A network with 30% fill at $20 CPM is worse than 95% fill at $8 CPM. Also measure: user experience (are you serving ads too aggressively?), retention impact (do users drop off after seeing ads?), and advertiser quality (are the ads bringing sketchy merchants?). A network that pays slightly less but preserves your retention curve is worth more long-term than a network that hits hard on users but pays well. And honestly, this is a multi-month optimization problem, not something you solve in two weeks.
My Overall Recommendation for 2026
If I’m being real with you, here’s what I’d do if I was building an app monetization strategy from scratch in 2026:
Start with Google AdMob as your foundation. It’s not perfect, but it’s the most reliable, most scalable, and safest choice. Set up in-app bidding so other networks can compete for your inventory. That’s non-negotiable.
Add AppLovin MAX as your secondary network. Their algorithm has genuinely gotten better, their fill rates are solid, their CPMs are competitive, and they’re responsive to problems. The setup is more complex than just using Google, but the revenue uplift usually justifies it.
Based on your specific situation, add one more network: ironSource if you’re games, Meta if you’re Western and want performance dollars, InMobi if you have Asian traffic, Vungle if you’re global with Tier 3 strength.
Monitor monthly. Don’t change things weekly — it creates noise. But monthly, compare CPMs, fill rates, and eRPM across networks. If a network is consistently underperforming, test changing floor prices or placement. After 2-3 months, if it’s still bad, replace it with something else.
Set expectations: in 2026, CPMs are lower than 2022. That’s reality. You’re not doing something wrong, you’re operating in a privacy-first world. Focus on volume, format optimization, and experience quality.
And honestly? The difference between a great monetization setup and a mediocre one isn’t huge — maybe 30-40% revenue difference if you’re optimizing hard. But it’s real money. Spending the time to get this right is absolutely worth it.
Good luck out there.
