We used Oden to analyze public product pages, G2 reviews, Reddit discussions, and recent press coverage of DoubleVerify, IAS, Moat, and Pixalate so you don’t have to piece this together yourself. If you’re trying to reduce fraud, avoid unsafe inventory, and keep CPMs under control, the differences between these platforms matter. Below, we’ll break down real-world ratings, pricing patterns, features, and who each tool is actually best for—based only on what we can verify from public sources.

Which ad verification platform has the best rating?

G2 is one of the few places with structured user feedback for these tools. Ratings are directional at best—sample sizes are small, especially for Pixalate—so treat them as one signal, not the final word.

Takeaways

• Moat has the highest average G2 score (4.6) but with only 32 reviews; statistically, that’s a thin sample for a global enterprise product. Source: G2 – Moat Analytics
• DoubleVerify has the broadest review base (77 reviews), which makes its 4.1 more robust as a directional benchmark than higher scores on tiny samples. Source: G2 – DoubleVerify
• IAS sits in the middle with 4.3 from 10 reviews; comments highlight strong brand safety and an easy UI but frequent complaints about price and reporting clarity. Source: G2 – Integral Ad Science
• Pixalate’s single G2 review simply isn’t enough to draw quantitative conclusions—and older Reddit threads include harsh criticism of its business practices and data quality, so you should vet carefully. Source: Reddit – “Pixalate finally directly called out on their BS”
• Across all four, user review volumes are low compared to more mainstream SaaS categories, so you should treat G2 ratings as supporting evidence alongside your own tests and partner feedback, not a primary decision driver.

How much do ad verification platforms really cost?

None of these vendors publish full rate cards. Pricing is negotiated, highly volume-dependent, and often sold via DSPs/SSPs as an add-on. Here’s what we can infer from agency write-ups, industry analyses, and vendor communications.

What this means in practice

• CPM add-ons add up quickly. Even $0.05–$0.10 CPM on DV can materially change your effective CPM at scale; IAS and Moat live in a similar “few cents per thousand impressions” range, depending on which metrics and channels you enable. Source: Grapeseed Media – DoubleVerify review guide, CanvasBusinessModel – industry CPMs
• Enterprise minimums matter. Analyses of DV’s pricing tiers show entry-level annual contracts starting around ~$50k and scaling beyond $500k+ for complex global setups; Moat and IAS typically also target larger advertisers and platforms, not small direct-response buyers. Source: DCFmodeling – DV pricing tiers, Integral Ad Science – company overview
• Pixalate is more accessible to developers and smaller teams via its freemium API, but sophisticated coverage (e.g., full CTV fraud analytics) still requires paid contracts. Source: Pixalate – API suite launch
• Negotiation and bundling (with DSPs, SSPs, or Oracle suites) often matter more than list prices. Many buyers see verification costs as “standard overhead” for programmatic, but you still need to model whether incremental brand-safety or attention features justify the extra CPM in your own performance data. Source: Grapeseed Media – DoubleVerify review guide, IAS – homepage

Always double-check current prices with each vendor's calculator or sales team.

What are the key features of each platform?

DoubleVerify

Core positioning: DoubleVerify markets itself as a “media effectiveness platform” that verifies media quality, optimizes performance, and proves outcomes across open web, social, and CTV. Source: DoubleVerify – homepage

Key Features:

• Media AdVantage Platform (Verify / Optimize / Prove) – unified suite that measures fraud, viewability, brand suitability, context, attention, and outcomes across channels via DV Pinnacle analytics. Source: DoubleVerify – homepage
• DV Authentic Ad® metric – MRC-accredited, holistic quality metric ensuring an impression is fully viewed, by a real person, in a brand-safe environment and correct geography; DV claims to be the only provider accredited to measure and de-duplicate ad quality this way. Source: DoubleVerify – Viewability capabilities
• MRC-accredited fraud, viewability, and targeting – accreditation for Fraud/IVT avoidance (SIVT and GIVT) and display/video viewability targeting across desktop, mobile web, mobile apps, and CTV, plus property-level ad verification and contextual targeting. Source: DoubleVerify – MRC accreditation press release
• Brand safety & suitability controls (including GenAI protection) – Brand Safety Floor and Brand Suitability tiers aligned with GARM/APB standards; new GenAI Website Avoidance & Detection to block low-quality AI-generated content and AI-focused DV AI Verification offering. Source: DoubleVerify – DV Marketplace Suite, , BusinessWire – DV AI Verification
• Deep social & CTV integrations – first-to-market CTV viewability solution; measurement/brand safety for YouTube Shorts, Meta Reels and Feeds, Reddit, Lyft, Roku and more, often as “first” or “exclusive” verification partner. Source: DoubleVerify – CTV viewability launch, , , DoubleVerify – Reddit partnership, TVTechnology – Roku & DoubleVerify
• Outcome measurement via Rockerbox integration – acquisition of Rockerbox adds multi-touch attribution, MMM, and incrementality tests, so DV can connect quality metrics to business outcomes from a single stack. Source: Axios – DoubleVerify to acquire Rockerbox

Best For:

• Large brands and agencies needing one vendor to cover verification, optimization, and outcomes across open web, social, and CTV.
• Advertisers prioritizing MRC-accredited quality metrics and granular control on major platforms (Meta, YouTube, Reddit, Roku, Lyft).
• Teams wanting advanced AI-driven protections (e.g., GenAI content avoidance, AI-agent verification) baked into verification.
• Enterprises that can justify mid–high six-figure annual spends in exchange for fewer point tools and richer analytics.

IAS (Integral Ad Science)

Core positioning: IAS presents itself as a “global leader in digital media quality,” focused on making every impression count with actionable data for viewability, fraud, brand safety, contextual targeting, and optimization. Source: Integral Ad Science – homepage

Key Features:

• Total Media Quality (TMQ) – flagship measurement product combining viewability, invalid traffic, and brand safety & suitability insights in one metric across channels, particularly social. Source: IAS – Brand Safety & Suitability overview
• Broad MRC accreditations, including CTV SIVT – MRC accreditation for sophisticated invalid traffic filtration in CTV and for CTV video viewable impressions, plus server-to-server accreditation for Amazon DSP impression, viewability, and IVT data. Source: , IAS – Amazon DSP accreditation
• Pre-bid and post-bid solutions – pre-bid segments to filter risky inventory and post-bid monitoring/blocking that provide granular insights into ad performance, including MFA (Made for Advertising) site detection. Source: IAS – Mastering Ad Verification article
• IAS Signal reporting platform – centralizes quality and performance data, giving near real-time insights and optimization recommendations. Source: IAS – Lyft Media partnership
• Deep social & platform partnerships – integrations with TikTok, Microsoft Advertising, Amazon DSP, Lyft, Snap and others for third‑party measurement and optimization. Source: , , IAS – Lyft Media partnership

Best For:

• Advertisers focused on strong, accredited CTV and social measurement, including Amazon DSP and TikTok.
• Teams that want easy-to-use dashboards and relatively simple setup, per multiple G2 reviews. Source: G2 – Integral Ad Science
• Brands heavily invested in contextual and suitability strategies rather than only basic brand safety.
• Media buyers who value proven pre-bid + post-bid controls to cut waste on MFA and low-quality inventory.

Moat (Oracle Moat Analytics)

Core positioning: Moat positions as an attention and verification analytics suite within Oracle Advertising, focusing on viewability, invalid traffic, brand safety, reach & frequency, and deeper attention metrics across TV and digital. Source: Wappalyzer – Oracle Moat description, Oracle – Moat Reach blog

Key Features:

• Comprehensive attention analytics – tracks 60+ attention metrics (e.g., In‑View Time, Interaction Rate, Moat Video Score) beyond basic viewability, with case studies showing improved VOC/AVOC when optimizing to attention. Source: StayModern – Oracle Moat Analytics review
• Viewability, IVT, and brand safety measurement – MRC‑accredited detection of SIVT/GIVT across desktop, mobile web, and in‑app environments, helping advertisers avoid invalid traffic and unsafe contexts. Source: StayModern – Oracle Moat Analytics review
• Moat Reach – unified people‑based reach & frequency measurement across TV and digital, giving de‑duplicated reach and frequency across audience segments and channels. Source: Oracle – Moat Reach blog
• Strong CTV and publisher integrations – CTV analytics helping partners like Spectrum Reach demonstrate IVT rates 20x lower than industry benchmarks and superior viewability/completion rates. Source: Oracle – Spectrum Reach case study
• Platform partnerships (LinkedIn, Samsung Ads, etc.) – selected as video viewability and attention measurement partner across major platforms including LinkedIn and Samsung Ads. Source: Oracle – LinkedIn partnership, Oracle – Moat selected by LinkedIn

Best For:

• Brands and publishers that care deeply about attention metrics and creative diagnostics, not just pass/fail verification.
• Advertisers already invested in Oracle Advertising/CX, who can bundle Moat into larger deals.
• CTV‑heavy advertisers wanting detailed CTV analytics tied to invalid traffic and completion rates.
• Organizations with the budget and staff to work with a premium, enterprise‑grade analytics stack.

Pixalate

Core positioning: Pixalate markets itself as a fraud protection, privacy, and compliance analytics platform for CTV, mobile apps, and the open web, with heavy emphasis on app‑store intelligence and COPPA/privacy tooling. Source: Pixalate – homepage

Key Features:

• Omnichannel fraud & IVT detection – monitors over 5+ million apps, 80+ million domains, and 300+ million OTT devices, with 5.5 trillion data points per month; claims detection of 35–40+ types of IVT across CTV, mobile, and web. Source: Pixalate – homepage
• MRC‑accredited SIVT detection – accredited by the Media Rating Council for sophisticated invalid traffic detection and filtering across desktop and mobile web, mobile in‑app, and OTT/CTV. Source: Pixalate – API suite launch
• COPPA compliance toolkit for CTV – identifies likely child‑directed apps on Roku and Amazon Fire TV stores using AI plus manual reviews by educators, helping advertisers manage COPPA risk. Source: Pixalate – COPPA toolkit launch
• IPv6‑enabled fraud protection & click IVT detection – patented IPv6/IPv4 matching tech with click‑level IVT analysis for more complete fraud coverage as networks migrate to IPv6. Source: Pixalate – IPv6 fraud protection API
• Self‑service Ad Trust & Safety API with freemium access – API and SDK suite that developers can integrate with a few lines of code, including free access tiers and SDKs for app‑level fraud prevention. Source: Pixalate – API suite launch

Best For:

• Teams that need granular CTV and app‑store intelligence (e.g., bundle ID → store ID mapping, publisher quality indexes). Source: Pixalate – homepage
• Developers or smaller platforms looking for API‑first access to fraud and compliance signals with a freemium on‑ramp. Source: Pixalate – API suite launch
• Buyers with a heavy CTV/mobile footprint who want a specialist focused on those surfaces rather than a broad media‑effectiveness suite.
• Privacy‑sensitive advertisers who need COPPA and child‑directed app intelligence baked into supply decisions. Source: Pixalate – COPPA toolkit launch

What are the strengths and weaknesses of each platform?

DoubleVerify

Strengths:

• Broad coverage and partnerships. Widely integrated across social (Meta, TikTok, Reddit), CTV (Roku, YouTube, streaming apps), and major marketplaces, often as a first‑to‑market or exclusive measurement partner. Source: DoubleVerify – Meta content controls, , TVTechnology – Roku & DoubleVerify
• Strong brand safety and suitability tooling. Users and partners frequently cite DV’s brand‑safety metrics as “top notch,” and its Brand Safety Floor aligned with GARM/APB has high industry adoption. Source: G2 – DV Pinnacle reviews, DoubleVerify – DV Marketplace Suite
• Innovation in AI/GenAI risk management. DV is early among verification vendors in launching dedicated GenAI website avoidance and AI‑agent verification (DV AI Verification), directly addressing emerging AI‑driven fraud and content‑quality issues. Source: DoubleVerify – GenAI protection launch, BusinessWire – DV AI Verification
• Outcome‑oriented roadmap. The Rockerbox acquisition and the MAP (Media AdVantage Platform) bundling signal a shift from pure verification to outcome measurement and optimization, which aligns with marketers’ push to tie quality metrics to business results. Source: Axios – DoubleVerify to acquire Rockerbox, Investing.com – DV platform commentary

Weaknesses:

• Reporting and dashboard UX are mixed. Some G2 reviewers say DV’s reporting lags IAS and Moat, calling the dashboard “difficult to navigate” and “often very slow,” while others praise improvements; this suggests uneven experience depending on use case and timeframe. Source: G2 – DV Pinnacle reviews
• Accuracy controversies and discrepancies. Press coverage and Reddit threads have highlighted discrepancies between DV and IAS reporting (e.g., one publisher seeing 100% IVT in DV vs <1% in IAS), as well as widely covered issues in DV’s social‑platform brand‑safety reporting that triggered scrutiny and Senate interest. Source: Reddit – DV vs IAS discrepancy, MediaPost – DV expands monitoring after report, Axios – Senate probe mention
• Enterprise‑focused pricing and complexity. Analyst breakdowns and directories describe DV pricing as custom, CPM‑based, and often expensive for smaller advertisers; one profile explicitly notes enterprise‑focused pricing and potentially heavy onboarding. Source: Grapeseed Media – DoubleVerify review guide, AIMadTech – DoubleVerify profile, DCFmodeling – DV pricing tiers
• Recent financial volatility. DV’s weaker‑than‑expected earnings and stock drop in early 2025 won’t directly impact verification quality, but they may influence how aggressively the company prices or bundles products in the near term. Source: Investopedia – DoubleVerify stock outlook

IAS (Integral Ad Science)

Strengths:

• Highly actionable, channel‑wide coverage. IAS emphasizes “the most actionable data to drive superior results,” with products spanning fraud, brand safety/suitability, contextual targeting, viewability, attention, and misinformation across CTV, open web, social, and audio. Source: Integral Ad Science – homepage
• Strong CTV and Amazon DSP credentials. IAS has MRC accreditation for CTV SIVT filtration and CTV video viewable impressions, plus server‑to‑server accreditation for Amazon DSP impressions, viewability, and IVT—valuable if you’re pushing hard into CTV and Amazon. Source: , IAS – Amazon DSP accreditation
• User‑friendly UI and support. Multiple G2 reviews cite IAS’ simple, self‑explanatory interface and strong customer support (e.g., weekly calls reviewing IVT and brand‑safety issues). Source: G2 – Integral Ad Science
• Effective MFA and risk detection. IAS has launched AI‑driven MFA site detection technology and publishes regular Media Quality Reports showing progress in reducing brand risk, which many marketers use to refine contextual strategies.

Weaknesses:

• Price sensitivity. Some G2 reviewers explicitly call out that IAS is “not great” on price relative to perceived value, especially for smaller budgets. Source: G2 – Integral Ad Science
• Tech and accountability concerns in some cases. At least one enterprise reviewer complains of “obvious flaws” in IAS pre‑bid solutions and frustration when high IVT or suitability fail rates persist without clear remediation. Source: G2 – Integral Ad Science
• Relatively small public review base. Only 10 G2 reviews limit confidence in the rating as a comprehensive measure of customer satisfaction. Source: G2 – Integral Ad Science

Moat (Oracle Moat Analytics)

Strengths:

• Rich analytics and dashboards. G2 users frequently praise Moat’s “stunning dashboard” and comprehensive data on creatives, including heatmaps and granular attention metrics that help diagnose performance issues. Source: G2 – Moat Analytics
• Attention‑driven performance gains. Oracle case studies (e.g., Duracell) show meaningful improvements in VOC (27%) and AVOC (18%) after using Moat attention data to optimize campaigns, validating that attention metrics can impact real outcomes.
• Trusted by large publishers and CTV platforms. Partners like Spectrum Reach and Samsung Ads use Moat to prove low IVT rates and high viewability/completion rates across CTV, helping them pitch premium inventory credibly. Source: Oracle – Spectrum Reach case study
• Strong multi‑platform presence. Moat measures viewability and attention across major US digital platforms, including LinkedIn and others, giving marketers consistent metrics across walled gardens. Source: Oracle – LinkedIn partnership

Weaknesses:

• Cost perceived as high. G2 flags perceived cost as “$$$$$,” and reviewers describe Moat as relatively expensive, which limits accessibility for smaller advertisers. Source: G2 – Moat Analytics
• Reporting latency and trafficking friction. Users note that Moat doesn’t report in true real time (often ~24‑hour turnaround) and that trafficking processes can be clunky or slow, especially for certain ad formats. Source: G2 – Moat Analytics
• Pixel‑based limitations. One reviewer points out that Moat’s tracking is still largely pixel‑based, with no obvious solution beyond that, which can be a limitation in cookie‑constrained or heavily ad‑blocked environments. Source: G2 – Moat Analytics

Pixalate

Strengths:

• Deep CTV and app‑store intelligence. Pixalate’s Media Ratings Terminal, Publisher Trust Indexes, and Top 100™ rankings provide unique visibility into CTV and mobile app quality, privacy compliance, and IVT risk across millions of apps and devices. Source: Pixalate – homepage
• Privacy and COPPA specialty. Its COPPA compliance toolkit for CTV, with manual educator reviews blended with AI, is a distinctive capability if you’re focused on children’s privacy and regulatory risk. Source: Pixalate – COPPA toolkit launch
• Developer‑friendly APIs. The self‑service Ad Trust & Safety API suite with a freemium tier lowers the barrier for app developers and smaller players to access MRC‑accredited fraud detection. Source: Pixalate – API suite launch

Weaknesses:

• Mixed reputation among ad‑ops practitioners. A widely discussed Reddit thread accuses Pixalate of “pay to play” rankings and skewed IVT data, with a self‑described former employee alleging heavily client‑biased practices; while anecdotal and older, it reflects trust concerns you should factor into vendor diligence. Source: Reddit – “Pixalate finally directly called out on their BS”
• Sparse mainstream user reviews. G2 has only one Pixalate review and explicitly states there aren’t enough reviews to provide buying insight, which leaves you reliant on direct tests rather than broad peer feedback. Source: G2 – Pixalate
• Less of a full‑funnel media‑effectiveness suite. Compared with DV, IAS, and Moat, Pixalate focuses more on fraud/privacy analytics and less on creative attention, attribution, or outcome measurement.

How do these platforms position themselves?

DoubleVerify describes itself as providing “the industry’s leading Media Effectiveness Platform,” using trusted measurement data and AI optimization to maximize campaign effectiveness and business outcomes across advertisers, publishers, and marketplaces. The homepage emphasizes “Superior Data,” “Dynamic Activation,” and “Tangible Outcomes,” with DV Pinnacle as the unified analytics layer. Source: DoubleVerify – homepage

IAS pitches “the most actionable data to drive superior results,” calling itself “a global leader in media measurement and optimization.” The site leans heavily on “Quality Impressions™,” positioning IAS as the benchmark for trust and transparency in digital media quality, serving advertisers, publishers, and platforms across CTV, open web, social, mobile, and audio. Source: Integral Ad Science – homepage

Moat is framed within Oracle Advertising as a SaaS analytics provider critical to “measuring advertising effectiveness,” covering verification, attention, reach and frequency, and sales‑lift measurement. Oracle materials stress Moat’s role in providing independent viewability and attention metrics across major digital platforms and in unifying TV + digital reach measurement via Moat Reach. Source: Wappalyzer – Oracle Moat measurement, Oracle – Moat Reach blog, Oracle – LinkedIn partnership

Pixalate brands itself as “the market‑leading fraud protection, privacy, and compliance analytics platform for Connected TV (CTV), Mobile Apps, and Websites,” focusing on bringing trust and transparency to the programmatic supply chain. Marketing emphasizes large‑scale analytics (5.5T data points monthly), MRC accreditation, and tools like the Publisher Trust Indexes and Media Ratings Terminal for buyers and sellers. Source: Pixalate – homepage, Pixalate – API suite launch

Which platform should you choose?

Choose DoubleVerify If:

1. You need one vendor across open web, social, and CTV and prefer to consolidate verification, optimization, and outcomes (attribution/MMM) into a single stack for easier governance. Source: DoubleVerify – homepage, Axios – Rockerbox acquisition
2. Meta, YouTube, Reddit, and Roku are major budget drivers, and you care about having first‑party integrations and independent quality metrics across those environments. Source: DoubleVerify – Meta content controls, , TVTechnology – Roku partnership
3. You want advanced suitability and AI‑risk controls—for example, automatically avoiding low‑quality GenAI content or monitoring AI‑agent interactions—rather than just traditional fraud and viewability. Source: DoubleVerify – GenAI protection, BusinessWire – DV AI Verification
4. Your budgets can absorb a mid‑range verification CPM (≈$0.05–$0.10) in exchange for broad coverage and strong brand‑safety controls, and you’re prepared to negotiate enterprise contracts. Source: Grapeseed Media – DoubleVerify review guide, DCFmodeling – DV pricing tiers
5. You have internal analytics resources that will actually use DV Pinnacle, Authentic Ad®, and Rockerbox data to optimize campaigns—not just tick a “verification” box.

Choose IAS If:

1. CTV and retail media (esp. Amazon DSP) are strategic, and you want a vendor with explicit MRC accreditation for CTV SIVT and server‑to‑server Amazon DSP measurement. Source: , IAS – Amazon DSP accreditation
2. You value an easier‑to‑use UI and strong account support, and your team has confirmed via trials or references that IAS Signal reporting fits their workflow better than DV or Moat. Source: G2 – Integral Ad Science
3. Your brand strategy leans on contextual and suitability controls (including MFA avoidance) and you want a vendor that produces regular media‑quality benchmarks to guide those policies.
4. You’re already working closely with platforms like TikTok, Microsoft Advertising, Lyft, or Snap, and prefer a verification provider with deep, formalized partnerships there. Source: , , IAS – Lyft partnership
5. You’re willing to pay a bit more for perceived quality and service, and you’ve validated through tests that IAS’ CPM uplift yields better media efficiency than cheaper alternatives.

Choose Moat If:

1. You care as much about attention and creative diagnostics as you do about basic verification. You want to optimize toward metrics like In‑View Time, interaction rates, and attention scores that have shown concrete performance gains in case studies. Source: StayModern – Oracle Moat Analytics review
2. You’re a TV + digital marketer who needs unified, people‑based reach and frequency metrics via Moat Reach across linear TV and digital channels. Source: Oracle – Moat Reach blog
3. You buy or sell a lot of CTV inventory and want to prove extremely low IVT and high viewability/completion rates in order to command premium pricing, as Spectrum Reach does. Source: Oracle – Spectrum Reach case study
4. You’re already an Oracle customer (Advertising/CX or broader cloud), so you can negotiate Moat as part of a multi‑product agreement rather than as a one‑off vendor. Source: Oracle – Oracle buys Moat
5. You have tolerance for premium pricing and some reporting latency, and you’re okay with 24‑hour reporting delays as long as you get richer analytics. Source: G2 – Moat Analytics

Choose Pixalate If:

1. Your risk profile is dominated by CTV and mobile apps, and you need large‑scale intelligence about app quality, IVT, and privacy compliance (e.g., child‑directed content flags, bundle‑ID mapping). Source: Pixalate – homepage, Pixalate – COPPA toolkit
2. You’re a developer or smaller platform who wants to start with a freemium API to get basic IVT checks live quickly, then scale into paid tiers as you grow. Source: Pixalate – API suite launch
3. You need MRC‑accredited SIVT detection but not a full media‑effectiveness stack, and you plan to pair Pixalate with separate tools for attribution or creative analytics. Source: Pixalate – API suite launch
4. You’re comfortable doing extra diligence on methodology and conflicts of interest, including verifying Pixalate’s outputs against other vendors or your own log‑level data, given historical community concerns about pay‑to‑play ranking schemes. Source: Reddit – “Pixalate finally directly called out on their BS”
5. Your budget rules out DV/IAS/Moat enterprise contracts, and you prefer an API‑metered model tied to usage rather than large fixed annual commitments.

Sources & links

Company Websites

• DoubleVerify – Homepage
• Integral Ad Science – Homepage
• Oracle – Moat / Oracle Advertising
• Pixalate – Homepage

Pricing Pages & Commercial Context

• Grapeseed Media – DoubleVerify Review Guide (includes CPM guidance)
• DCFmodeling – DoubleVerify Marketing Mix & Pricing Tiers
• CanvasBusinessModel – DoubleVerify Porter's Five Forces (industry CPMs)
• Adweek – IAS Raises Rates Amid Sale Rumors

Documentation & Product Overviews

• DoubleVerify – Viewability Capabilities
• DoubleVerify – DV Media AdVantage Platform Fact Sheet
• IAS – Brand Safety & Suitability Overview
• IAS – Mastering Ad Verification Article
• Oracle – Moat Reach Overview
• Pixalate – Media Ratings Terminal & Publisher Trust Indexes

G2 Review Pages

• G2 – DoubleVerify
• G2 – DV Pinnacle
• G2 – Integral Ad Science
• G2 – Moat Analytics
• G2 – Pixalate

Reddit Discussions

• r/adops – “Pixalate finally directly called out on their BS”
• r/adops – DoubleVerify vs IAS discrepancy
• r/adops – Discussion of blocking tags (DV, IAS, Moat)
• r/marketing – Questions about DoubleVerify

Press Releases & Industry Articles

• DoubleVerify – MRC Accreditation Across Programmatic Targeting

• DoubleVerify – CTV Viewability Launch

• DoubleVerify – GenAI Protection Launch

• DoubleVerify – Content-Level Controls on Meta

• IAS – MRC Accreditation for Amazon DSP

• Oracle – Spectrum Reach & Moat Case Study

• Pixalate – Ad Trust & Safety API Suite Launch

• Pixalate – COPPA Compliance Toolkit for CTV

Additional Resources

• Investopedia – DoubleVerify Stock Plunges on Weaker-Than-Expected Earnings
• Axios – DoubleVerify to Acquire Rockerbox
• MediaPost – DoubleVerify Expands Content Monitoring After Adalytics Report
• TVTechnology – Roku & DoubleVerify Report Drop in Falsified Ad Impressions
• StayModern – Oracle Moat Analytics Detailed Review