DoubleVerify, Integral Ad Science (IAS), and Adloox all sell the same basic promise to advertisers and agencies: verify that an ad actually ran where it was supposed to, was seen by a real person, and didn’t appear next to content that would embarrass the brand. None of the three publish a public rate card, and that’s normal for this category rather than a red flag — enterprise ad verification is priced and negotiated per contract, typically as a fee layered on top of media cost inside a DSP. We’re not going to invent numbers these vendors don’t publish; instead, here’s what’s actually confirmed about how each one works, how they’re priced, and one major ownership change worth knowing about before you shortlist Adloox.
At a Glance
| Platform | Pricing model | Core coverage | Best for |
|---|---|---|---|
| DoubleVerify (DV) | Quote-based; billed as a CPM-style fee layered on top of media spend inside DSPs like DV360 | Fraud/invalid traffic, viewability, brand suitability, attention, plus outcome measurement (attribution, MMM, incrementality) via DV Rockerbox | Advertisers who want verification and outcome/attribution measurement from the same vendor |
| Integral Ad Science (IAS) | Quote-based; fee varies by which brand safety controls you enable, billed per control type inside the DSP | Brand safety/suitability, contextual targeting, ad fraud, viewability, plus IAS Agent and coverage across CTV, social, open web, mobile, audio, and commerce media | Advertisers who want granular control over exactly which brand safety filters they pay for |
| Adloox | Quote-based; now sold and supported as part of Peer39 following Peer39’s June 2026 acquisition of Adloox | Brand safety/suitability verification, invalid traffic (IVT) detection, and viewability, including expanded coverage on Meta/Instagram campaigns | Agencies and advertisers who want contextual-brand-safety and verification data unified in one interface, now via Peer39 |
Short Verdict
The honest answer on pricing is that none of these three publish one, and for enterprise ad verification that’s the norm, not a transparency failure — fees are typically billed as a per-impression (CPM-style) charge that stacks on top of the media cost itself, confirmed through Google’s own Display & Video 360 documentation for both DoubleVerify and IAS, and both vendors have reportedly raised those fees during 2026. The real differentiator right now isn’t price, it’s structure: DoubleVerify bundles verification with its own attribution/outcome-measurement stack; IAS lets you pay only for the specific brand safety controls you turn on; and Adloox is no longer a fully independent company — it was acquired by Peer39 in June 2026, and its verification and fraud-detection tools are now being folded into Peer39’s own contextual-targeting platform.
What It Is / How It Works
Ad verification and brand safety platforms sit between an advertiser’s DSP (or the ad platform directly) and the actual ad placement, measuring three things in real time or near-real time: whether the impression was delivered to a real person rather than a bot (fraud/invalid traffic detection), whether it was actually visible on screen for a meaningful duration (viewability), and whether the surrounding content is appropriate for the brand (brand safety/suitability, usually scored against categories like violence, adult content, or misinformation). These scores can be used two ways: passively, for post-campaign reporting, or actively, to automatically block bids on inventory that fails the brand’s chosen thresholds before the ad ever serves — which is the main reason these fees are usually layered directly into DSP billing rather than sold as a separate subscription.
How Pricing Actually Works (and Why There’s No Rate Card)
| Vendor | What’s confirmed about pricing |
|---|---|
| DoubleVerify | Google’s own Display & Video 360 help documentation confirms DV’s “standard verification pre-bid rate card” was updated in April 2025, describing it only as a “marginal increase” to CPM rates “for some solutions,” with no figures published and advertisers directed to contact DoubleVerify directly for current rates. |
| Integral Ad Science | Google’s DV360 documentation confirms IAS fees are based on which brand safety controls are enabled — using multiple rating-category exclusions counts as one fee, but combining category exclusions with suspicious-activity exclusion and/or a viewability threshold bills each control type separately. Separately, Adweek reported in late 2026, citing sources with direct knowledge, that IAS was raising prices on its brand safety solutions effective November 1, with no public dollar figures disclosed. |
| Adloox | No independent pricing data was published prior to its 2026 acquisition by Peer39, and Peer39 has not published a public rate card either; pricing for Adloox’s tools is now handled through Peer39’s standard enterprise sales process. |
We’re stating this plainly rather than guessing: enterprise ad verification is priced per contract, usually negotiated based on spend volume and which modules (fraud, viewability, brand safety, attention) you turn on, and none of the three vendors above publish a self-serve rate card the way a SaaS tool would. Treat any specific CPM figure you see quoted elsewhere online as unverified unless it comes with a dated source from the vendor or a platform like DV360’s own documentation.
Feature Comparison
| Capability | DoubleVerify | IAS | Adloox |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brand safety / suitability | Yes, via the “Verify” pillar of DV’s Media AdVantage Platform | Yes, Brand Safety & Suitability plus Contextual Targeting | Yes, including expanded coverage on Meta/Instagram campaigns as of 2026 |
| Fraud / invalid traffic detection | Yes | Yes, named “Ad Fraud” and “Ad Verification” | Yes, IVT detection, now integrated into Peer39’s reporting interface |
| Viewability measurement | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| AI-driven optimization | DV Scibids AI, plus the new DV Authentic AdVantage for walled-garden video platforms | IAS Agent (described as campaign-insight surfacing) | Not described independently; now positioned alongside Peer39’s contextual data products |
| Outcome / attribution measurement | DV Rockerbox (attribution, marketing mix modeling, incrementality) | Not a core focus; IAS positions itself primarily around media quality rather than outcome measurement | Not a core focus |
| Channel coverage | Programmatic display/video, CTV, social, and walled-garden video via DV Authentic AdVantage | CTV & Video, Social Platforms, Open Web, Mobile & In-App, Digital Audio, Commerce Media | Programmatic (via DV360 integration) and Meta/Instagram |
| Ownership status (2026) | Independent, publicly traded company | Independent company; Adweek reported it may be exploring a sale | Acquired by Peer39 on June 9, 2026; team and products now operate under Peer39 |
Pros and Cons
- DoubleVerify pros: one of the few vendors that pairs verification with genuine outcome/attribution measurement (DV Rockerbox) rather than stopping at media quality; broad channel coverage including walled-garden video.
- DoubleVerify cons: no public pricing; Google’s own documentation confirms rate increases without disclosing the new figures, so budgeting requires a direct quote.
- IAS pros: granular, à la carte billing by control type means you aren’t necessarily paying for brand safety features you don’t use; strong, named coverage across CTV, social, audio, and commerce media.
- IAS cons: reported November 2026 price increase with no public figures; Adweek’s reporting that IAS may be weighing a sale introduces some uncertainty about the vendor’s direction.
- Adloox pros: verification and fraud-detection tools are now backed by Peer39’s contextual data infrastructure, with Peer39 explicitly promising no disruption to existing DV360 or Meta implementations.
- Adloox cons: no longer an independent company as of June 2026, which means its product roadmap and brand identity are now tied to Peer39’s decisions rather than standing alone.
Who It’s a Good Fit For
DoubleVerify fits advertisers who want verification and post-campaign attribution/outcome measurement from a single vendor relationship rather than stitching two tools together. IAS fits buyers who want fine-grained control over exactly which brand safety filters they’re billed for, and who are comfortable negotiating given the vendor’s reported late-2026 price increase. Adloox fits agencies already using Peer39 for contextual targeting who want verification and fraud detection folded into that same reporting interface, since Peer39 has stated existing Adloox implementations won’t need to change.
Who Should Look Elsewhere
- Smaller advertisers without a dedicated media-buying or ad-ops team may find all three vendors’ enterprise sales and quote process disproportionate to their spend, and should look at lower-cost, self-serve fraud-detection tools instead.
- Anyone who needs a locked-in, self-serve published price before committing budget should expect none of these three to offer one — plan for a sales conversation as part of the evaluation timeline, not a checkout page.
- Teams specifically evaluating Adloox as a fully independent vendor should factor in that it’s now part of Peer39 as of mid-2026, which may affect long-term roadmap and support decisions even though current implementations are unaffected.
Bottom Line
None of these three platforms will give you a number on a pricing page, and that’s expected for enterprise ad verification rather than a knock against any of them — the honest move is to say so plainly, which is what we’ve done here, rather than publish a guessed CPM rate. What should actually drive your shortlist is structure: DoubleVerify if you want verification plus attribution in one vendor, IAS if you want to pay only for the specific controls you enable, and Adloox if you’re already in or open to Peer39’s ecosystem — just go in aware that Adloox stopped being a standalone company in June 2026.
FAQ
Why don’t DoubleVerify, IAS, or Adloox publish pricing?
Ad verification fees are typically negotiated per contract and billed as a CPM-style charge layered on top of media spend inside a DSP, varying by spend volume, which modules are enabled, and the specific deal — there’s no standard “seat” or “plan” the way SaaS tools sell, which is why none of the three publish a self-serve rate card.
Is it true that Adloox was acquired?
Yes — Peer39 announced its acquisition of Adloox on June 9, 2026. Peer39 has stated there will be no disruption to existing customer engagements, reporting, or campaign operations, and that Adloox customers won’t need to change their DV360 or Meta implementations.
Did IAS or DoubleVerify really raise prices in 2026?
Adweek reported, citing sources with direct knowledge, that IAS raised prices on its brand safety solutions effective November 1, 2026, communicated to clients through in-platform notices on partner DSPs. Separately, Google’s own DV360 documentation confirms DoubleVerify updated its standard verification rate card in April 2025 with a “marginal increase” to some CPM rates. Neither disclosure includes specific dollar figures.
Do these tools work outside of Display & Video 360?
Yes — all three integrate with multiple DSPs and, in IAS’s and Adloox’s case, directly with social platforms like Meta; DV360 is simply the platform whose own public documentation happens to confirm the most detail about how DoubleVerify’s and IAS’s fees are structured.
Sources
- DoubleVerify launches DV Authentic AdVantage (DoubleVerify newsroom)
- Updates to DoubleVerify’s standard verification pre-bid rate card (Google Display & Video 360 Help)
- About Integral Ad Science’s media quality verification (Google Display & Video 360 Help)
- Integral Ad Science Is Raising the Prices of Brand Safety Solutions for Buyers (Adweek)
- Integral Ad Science official site
- Peer39 Acquires Adloox (Pulse2)
- Programmatic Advertising Platforms in 2026 (Software Online Review)
Discover more from Software Online Review
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
