Spotify Ads vs Meta Ads 2026: A Practitioner Comparison

TL;DR: Spotify Ads and Meta Ads are not interchangeable. Spotify is a brand-awareness and reach machine with higher CPMs but near-100% audio completion rates. Meta is a direct-response and consideration engine with precise targeting and significantly more flexible budgets. This comparison covers formats, CPMs, targeting depth, measurement, and a decision framework for routing budget between them.

Most comparisons of Spotify Ads vs Meta Ads treat the two platforms as competitors on the same playing field. They are not. Running an audio ad on Spotify and running a video ad in the Meta feed are different bets on different user behaviors, different creative mechanics, and different conversion time horizons.

If you are evaluating whether to add Spotify to a Meta-heavy budget, or considering whether to reallocate from one to the other, the question is not "which is better" — it is "better for what, at what stage, for what audience."

This guide gives you the framework to answer that question with data, not instinct.

Platform Architecture: How Each One Works

Understanding the structural difference between Spotify and Meta matters before you look at any CPM number or targeting option.

Meta's architecture is built around a social graph and behavioral data layer. Meta knows what you have clicked, liked, commented on, and purchased across Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and the Audience Network. Ad placement is competitive auction-based: every ad impression is won through a real-time bid that accounts for your bid, estimated action rates, and ad quality. The feed is a contested attention environment — your ad competes with friend updates, Reels, Stories, and every other advertiser in the same auction.

Spotify's architecture is built around listening context. The platform knows your genre preferences, playlist behavior, listening time-of-day, device type, and (with some restrictions) age, gender, and location. Ad inventory is segmented into specific listening slots: between songs on the free tier for audio and display ads; within podcast episodes for podcast ads; and on the home screen or browse page for visual placements. The critical difference: there is no feed scroll. An audio ad plays in a context where the user is doing something else — commuting, working out, cooking. They cannot swipe past it.

That structural difference — scrollable feed vs. forced-listen — is the foundation of every practical comparison point between these two platforms.

Ad Formats: What You Can Actually Run

Meta Ad Formats

Meta's format library is wide. The core formats relevant for most advertisers:

• Single image / video (feed): The workhorse. Available in Facebook Feed, Instagram Feed, Instagram Explore, and Audience Network. Video ads and static images compete in the same auction.
• Carousel ads: Multiple cards (2-10), each with its own link. Strong for product showcases, feature walkthroughs, and storytelling.
• Stories and Reels: Full-screen vertical formats with high attention when viewed, but lower inventory depth than feed.
• Catalog ads / Dynamic Creative: Product catalog-driven placements that personalize per user based on browse or purchase behavior.
• Lead Ads: In-platform form completion without leaving Facebook or Instagram.

Meta's format breadth is its creative advantage. You can run 30 variants of a single concept across image, video, and carousel simultaneously, test them against each other, and let Meta's dynamic creative optimization route impressions to winners automatically.

For creative testing at volume, Meta's format library has no peer. The creative iteration cycle is faster, cheaper, and more data-rich than any audio-first platform.

Spotify Ad Formats

Spotify's format set is narrower but more contextually distinct:

• Audio ads (15-30 seconds): The signature Spotify placement. Plays between songs on the free tier with a companion display banner. No skip button. Audio + visual pairing means your message reaches users even when their screen is locked.
• Video ads (15-30 seconds): Plays only when the Spotify app is visible and active on screen. Completion rates are high because Spotify only serves them in "viewable" sessions — this is a more accountable video placement than many feed formats where autoplay happens below the fold.
• Podcast ads: Host-read or pre-produced spots inserted within podcast episodes. Available via Spotify Audience Network across Spotify and third-party podcast apps. Podcast ad CPMs typically run $18-$35 for targeted placements.
• Display and overlay: Takeover placements on the home screen and browse pages, typically reserved for larger brand campaigns.

Spotify's format advantage is singular: you can reach listeners who are not looking at a screen at all. That is not a format Meta offers.

Platform Comparison: Key Dimensions

Targeting: Where the Gap Is Widest

This is the most consequential structural difference between the two platforms — and the one most comparison guides underweight.

Meta's targeting depth is the product of two decades of behavioral data collection across the most-used social apps in the world. Detailed targeting gives you interest categories, behavior signals, job titles, and life events. Custom audiences let you target your exact customer list or website visitors. Lookalike audiences expand from those seeds using Meta's statistical matching.

The Meta Pixel and Conversions API close the loop between ad exposure and purchase action, letting the algorithm optimize toward the users most likely to convert — not just the users most likely to click. This closed-loop optimization is what makes Meta a direct-response machine. No other platform currently matches its purchase-signal depth.

Spotify's targeting is context-first. You can target by music genre, playlist mood (focus, workout, dinner), listening activity, and demographic filters (age, gender, location). Spotify's first-party data is rich for contextual alignment — if you're selling energy drinks, targeting "workout" and "running" playlists is genuinely powerful audience-signal matching.

What Spotify cannot do: target users based on purchase history, website visits, lookalikes of your converters, or behavioral intent signals beyond listening behavior. Spotify Audience Match (email list targeting) exists, but it requires a list of 500+ emails and match rates are lower than Meta's because Spotify account emails are less consistently primary-contact addresses.

If your campaign needs to find users who have already shown purchase intent for your category, Meta is the only option of the two.

Measurement and Attribution

Measurement is where Spotify Ads most clearly trails Meta — and where the comparison is most important for performance marketers to understand before committing budget.

Meta's measurement stack includes: Pixel-based event tracking, Conversions API for server-side attribution, brand lift studies (available at scale), in-platform analytics, and integration with third-party MMMs and attribution platforms. For direct-response campaigns, Meta's attribution window options (1-day click, 7-day click, 1-day view) are adjustable. You can track an ad exposure to a purchase with reasonable confidence.

Spotify's measurement is considerably thinner. Spotify's Ad Analytics dashboard provides reach, frequency, completion rates, and clickthrough rates. Spotify does offer a Pixel for website conversion tracking, but adoption and fidelity are lower than Meta's because Spotify ad exposure happens in a different session from web browsing — connecting an audio ad heard during a morning run to a purchase made that afternoon is attribution methodology that Spotify's tools do not handle well natively.

Third-party attribution vendors (Kochava, AppsFlyer, Branch for mobile app advertisers) can bridge this gap partially. For brand advertisers focused on reach and frequency metrics rather than direct conversion, Spotify's measurement is adequate. For performance marketers whose bosses want a ROAS number, Spotify's measurement will frustrate.

This is not a Spotify-specific failing. Audio advertising attribution is an industry-wide problem — the IAB's audio advertising measurement guidelines acknowledge that audio-to-conversion attribution requires probabilistic models that have larger error bars than click-based tracking. If you require tight attribution before spending, that is a structural limitation of the channel, not just the platform.

CPM Reality: What Advertisers Actually Pay

Published CPM ranges for both platforms vary widely depending on vertical, audience, season, and bidding strategy. Here is the most useful framing.

Spotify Ads CPMs for audio run $15-$35 for standard targeting. Podcast ads via Spotify Audience Network are typically $18-$35 for host-read, $10-$20 for pre-produced dynamic insertion. Video CPMs on Spotify are often lower than audio on a per-impression basis ($10-$25) because the viewable-session requirement reduces total available inventory.

Meta Ads CPMs average $8-$22 in the feed, with significant vertical variation. Healthcare, finance, and insurance can push $30+. Consumer goods and ecommerce typically run $10-$18. Reels and Stories placements often have lower CPMs than main feed.

Raw CPM comparison favors Meta on price per impression. But the Spotify audio attention context — where the ad plays in full, without competition, and frequently without screen distraction — represents a qualitatively different impression than a feed ad that might be scrolled past in 0.3 seconds.

A useful mental model: Spotify CPMs are priced for attention quality, Meta CPMs are priced for volume and targeting precision. When a brand awareness message needs to land and stick, a higher-CPM Spotify audio completion is often worth more than a lower-CPM Meta impression that may not have been seen.

For calculating what these CPMs mean at your budget level, the CPM Calculator at AdLibrary gives you reach projections for both platform cost ranges.

Use-Case Routing: When to Use Which Platform

Here is the routing framework. These are not arbitrary — they come from the structural differences in targeting, format, and measurement described above.

Use Spotify Ads when:

• Your objective is brand awareness or message recall, not immediate conversion
• Your audience is defined by lifestyle or context (fitness, focus, commuting) rather than purchase behavior
• You need to reach users during screen-off moments that Meta cannot access
• You are building audio brand equity (sonic identity, jingle, consistent voice)
• Your campaign is upper-funnel and brand-lift measurement is sufficient
• Your product has a strong music or lifestyle association

Use Meta Ads when:

• Your objective is conversion, lead generation, or direct-response outcomes
• You need retargeting against website visitors, existing customers, or purchase-intent signals
• You need to test multiple creatives quickly and cheaply (Meta's minimum is $1/day; Spotify's is $250/campaign)
• You need precise demographic or behavioral targeting beyond context and genre
• You require tight ROAS measurement and attribution
• You are running a catalog or dynamic product ad that requires purchase-signal optimization

Use both simultaneously when:

• Your monthly budget is $5,000+
• You are building a brand that needs both presence (Spotify) and conversion (Meta)
• You have consistent creative themes you can adapt across audio and visual formats
• You want Spotify to generate upper-funnel awareness and Meta to capture and convert the demand

The combined play is where the real leverage is. A user who hears your brand three times during their morning run playlist and then sees your retargeting ad on Instagram that evening is in a materially different psychological position than a user who only saw the Instagram ad cold. Frequency across channels compounds differently than frequency on a single channel.

Creative Requirements: A Practical Gap Analysis

Creative requirements are a significant practical barrier that most comparison guides skip.

Meta creative can be produced at any budget. A phone photo, a text overlay, and a destination URL is a functional Meta ad. Many high-performing DTC ads are produced this way. UGC ads — authentic, unpolished creator content — routinely outperform produced studio creative on Meta. The platform rewards scroll-stopping authenticity, not production value.

Spotify audio creative requires a 15-30 second voiceover script and recorded audio file. This has a floor of production time and often cost that a phone photo does not. A compelling audio ad needs: a clear hook in the first 3 seconds (the listener's finger is on the next-track button even without a skip button, because they can act on the impulse after the ad), a brand mention, a single message, and a call to action. Spotify's Ad Studio includes a free creative production tool that generates audio ads from a script using AI voices — this removes the professional recording barrier for small advertisers.

For video on Spotify, the requirement that it only plays in viewable sessions means your video must work without sound (captions) and also carry the audio message — because the use case cuts both ways. You cannot assume the user is watching.

Creative production complexity is one of the underrated reasons Meta dominates small-to-medium advertiser budgets. The iteration speed advantage — going from a new concept to a live test in under an hour — is a structural benefit that is hard to replicate on any audio platform.

Competitive Research: What You Can See on Each Platform

For competitive intelligence purposes, the two platforms have very different transparency levels.

Meta's Ad Library (Meta's free tool at facebook.com/ads/library) is one of the most useful transparency tools in digital advertising. You can search any brand, see all their active ads, view creative assets, inspect copy, and in some markets see spend ranges and demographic distribution. This is a direct window into what your competitors are running.

For serious competitive research that goes beyond Meta's free API limits, AdLibrary gives you richer fields per ad (creative metadata, performance signals, enrichment), multi-platform coverage across Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, LinkedIn, and more — all in a single query. Meta's free API is fine for basic lookups. When you add cross-platform visibility into the same research session, AdLibrary's multi-platform data layer is what makes that possible without stitching together five different interfaces. See AdLibrary's platform filters and unified ad search for how this works in practice.

Spotify's ad transparency is minimal. There is no Spotify equivalent of Meta's Ad Library. You cannot look up what audio ads a competitor is running. This makes competitive research on Spotify primarily a listening exercise — if you hear a competitor's audio ad, you heard it because you happen to be a Spotify user in their target audience. That is not a systematic research method.

For brands planning a Spotify launch, the most useful competitive research is actually done on the Meta side: look at what creative concepts, messaging angles, and offer structures your competitors have been scaling on Meta (the channel with transparency), and adapt those learnings for your Spotify audio script. The Meta Ad Library gives you the research signal; Spotify is where you apply it in a new channel context.

For a structured workflow on using competitor ad data to inform new-channel creative, see the competitor ad research use case and creative inspiration and swipe file building on AdLibrary.

Budget Allocation Framework

For most advertisers who come to this comparison, the practical question is: how should I split budget between these two platforms?

A practical framework by monthly ad spend:

Under $2,000/month: Allocate 100% to Meta. Spotify's $250 minimum is not the blocker — the real blocker is that you do not have enough volume to learn from Spotify's measurement or to run meaningful A/B creative tests there. Meta's performance data at this budget level is also thin, but it is thicker than what Spotify will give you. Build your conversion funnel on Meta first.

$2,000-$5,000/month: Consider a one-time Spotify test campaign ($500-$1,000 budget) to establish a CPM and completion-rate baseline for your brand. Do not treat it as a performance channel yet. Use Meta for all conversion-focused spending. The Spotify test is brand measurement and learning investment.

$5,000-$20,000/month: A 70/30 or 80/20 Meta/Spotify split is defensible for brands with an upper-funnel story. Spotify budget should run consistently (not one-off) to build frequency — audio brand building requires repeated exposure to generate recall. Meta handles all retargeting and direct-response objectives.

$20,000+/month: At this scale, both channels can be run with statistical validity. The optimal split depends heavily on vertical. Consumer packaged goods, streaming entertainment, and lifestyle brands tend to find Spotify delivering strong brand lift at 20-30% of total budget. Performance-first verticals (ecommerce, fintech, direct sales) often keep Spotify at 10-15% of total budget as a brand layer.

For modeling the reach and frequency implications of different budget splits, use the Ad Spend Estimator and Media Mix Modeler at AdLibrary to project coverage at your numbers.

The Attention Economics Argument

There is a deeper argument for Spotify Ads that CPM comparisons miss.

Reach is not all created equal. A Meta feed impression competes for attention against every other piece of content in a user's feed at that moment. Eye-tracking studies from academic and platform research consistently show that a significant share of feed impressions receive under one second of dwell time.

A Spotify audio ad plays in a context where the user's screen is often locked, their phone is in their pocket, and they are engaged in a physical activity that prevents multitasking with another screen. The ad plays in full. The completion rate is not a proxy for attention — it is the definition of it.

For brand messages that require more than a glance to register — new product launches, rebrand campaigns, complex value propositions — the forced-listen format provides something Meta genuinely cannot: a guaranteed few seconds of undivided audio attention.

This is not a reason to shift all budget to Spotify. It is a reason to consider what your campaign's creative message requires. If the message works in 3 seconds, Meta's scroll environment is fine. If it requires 15-30 seconds to land, Spotify's listening context is structurally better suited. See brand awareness and ad format in the AdLibrary glossary for the framework concepts that underpin this distinction.

For further reading on attention economics in digital advertising, the Nielsen annual media report and eMarketer's audio advertising forecasts provide the industry-level data context.

Multi-Platform Research Workflows

The most actionable takeaway from this comparison is not about platform selection — it is about research workflow.

If you are adding Spotify to a Meta-dominant plan, the transition point where AdLibrary's multi-platform coverage becomes directly useful is when you need to understand how competitors are messaging across channels, not just on Meta.

Meta's free Ad Library API is sufficient for checking what a single brand is running on Meta. The moment you want to compare messaging consistency across TikTok, YouTube, and Meta to understand a competitor's full creative strategy — to inform what angle your Spotify audio script should take — the free API stops being enough. AdLibrary's Business plan (€329/mo) provides API access to query ad creative data across platforms programmatically. For agencies building multi-platform creative briefs from competitive data, that cross-platform query capability is the practical difference between a complete brief and a partial one.

For individual researchers and freelancers who want the cross-platform view without the API layer, AdLibrary's Pro plan at €179/mo gives you 300 credits per month to search and enrich ads across platforms through the UI. That is enough for consistent weekly competitive research sessions covering Spotify-adjacent platforms like TikTok and YouTube, which are structurally more similar to Spotify in their video/audio formats than Meta's feed.

For research workflows specifically, see competitive-ad-spend-analysis and cross-platform ad strategy on AdLibrary.

Frequently Asked Questions

Are Spotify Ads more expensive than Meta Ads?

Spotify Ads typically run higher CPMs than Meta Ads — Spotify audio CPMs range from $15 to $35, while Meta feed CPMs average $8 to $22 depending on audience and vertical. However, Spotify offers a different attention context: audio ads play without competition from scrolling, and video ads on Spotify run when the app is in focus. The cost comparison is only meaningful when you account for the quality of that attention, not raw CPM alone.

Can you retarget on Spotify Ads the way you can on Meta?

Spotify's retargeting capabilities are significantly more limited than Meta's. Spotify does not support pixel-based website visitor retargeting in the same granular way. You can target users who engaged with a previous Spotify ad (sequential messaging), and Spotify supports first-party audience matching via email upload for Audience Match. Meta's retargeting via Pixel, Conversions API, and custom audiences is far more sophisticated — this remains one of Meta's largest structural advantages for direct-response advertisers.

What is the minimum budget for Spotify Ads?

Spotify Ad Studio requires a minimum campaign budget of $250. This is higher than Meta's $1/day minimum for ad sets. For small advertisers or initial tests, Meta is considerably more accessible. Spotify's minimum reflects the platform's positioning as a brand-awareness channel rather than a performance testing environment.

Which platform is better for brand awareness campaigns?

For pure brand awareness with guaranteed message delivery, Spotify has a structural advantage: audio ads play to a listening audience that cannot scroll past them. Completion rates for Spotify audio ads average 85-95% because there is no skip mechanism for standard audio placements. Meta brand awareness campaigns run in a scrolling environment where attention is contested. If message completion matters more than reach volume, Spotify often wins for awareness — if reach volume at lower CPM matters more, Meta wins.

Should I run both Spotify Ads and Meta Ads at the same time?

Yes, for brands with sufficient budget — typically $5,000/month or more in combined ad spend. The channels are structurally complementary: Spotify builds audio-first brand presence and reaches listeners during commuting, exercising, and working sessions that Meta cannot access. Meta handles retargeting, direct response, and conversion. The most effective approach is to use Spotify for upper-funnel exposure and Meta to capture and convert the demand it generates, with consistent creative themes across both.

What This Means for Your Next Budget Decision

The Spotify vs Meta question is not a binary. It is a channel-fit question.

Meta is the default for any direct-response objective, any campaign that needs tight attribution, any advertiser under $2,000/month in budget, and any test-and-learn creative program. Its targeting depth, format breadth, measurement infrastructure, and low minimum spend make it the baseline platform for performance marketing in 2026.

Spotify earns budget allocation when you have a brand story that requires audio attention, a lifestyle audience best defined by context rather than behavior, or a strategy that explicitly combines upper-funnel building with lower-funnel conversion. At $5,000+/month, a Spotify allocation of 15-30% is a defensible brand investment — not a cost, but a different kind of reach.

For most practitioners reading this, the right next step is not to shift budget but to run one structured Spotify test. Set a $500-$750 budget. Define one message. Measure completion rate and post-campaign brand recall (Spotify offers brand lift studies at lower budget thresholds than Meta). Use the results to calibrate whether the channel fits your brand's message requirements.

For the competitive research layer that should inform that test — understanding what messaging your competitors are running across platforms, what angles they are scaling, what creative formats have proven longevity — AdLibrary's Pro plan at €179/mo is sized for exactly that profile. 300 credits per month covers consistent multi-platform competitive research without budget gymnastics.

For understanding what your ad spend buys on each platform at your budget level, use the CPC Calculator and Ad Budget Planner to model reach projections before committing.

Spotify Ad Studio vs Meta Ads Manager: The Interface Reality

Beyond strategy, there is a practical usability gap between the two self-serve platforms that affects how quickly you can execute.

Meta Ads Manager is a full campaign management environment. It is complex — arguably too complex for casual users — but it supports every campaign objective, every bidding strategy, every creative format, and every reporting view from a single interface. Power users running multiple accounts simultaneously benefit from Business Manager's account switching and team permission structures. See meta-ads-campaign-planning for a structured orientation to the interface.

Spotify Ad Studio is simpler by design, and simpler by necessity — Spotify's format variety is narrower, so the interface does not need to handle as many variables. The trade-off is less control. You cannot run the equivalent of Meta's Advantage+ automated placement optimization on Spotify. What you configure is what runs, with less algorithmic budget reallocation across placements.

For new advertisers, Spotify Ad Studio's simplicity is a genuine advantage. You can configure a campaign in 20 minutes including AI-assisted audio production. The learning curve is low. For experienced Meta operators, Spotify's interface will feel limited — that is not a criticism, it is a product of the narrower format set.

The practical upshot: if your team already operates Meta Ads Manager fluently, adding Spotify does not require significant interface learning. It requires creative adaptation — writing and producing audio that works in 30 seconds — which is the actual skill investment.

How Competitors Use Each Platform

For practitioners trying to calibrate their own platform mix, understanding how brands in your category are allocating between Spotify and Meta gives useful baseline data.

General patterns observed across industries:

• Consumer packaged goods (CPG): Spotify allocation tends to be higher — 20-35% of digital — because audio fits a lifestyle-context targeting model that CPG brands have used in traditional radio for decades. The shift from radio spots to Spotify audio ads is straightforward from a brief-writing standpoint.

• DTC ecommerce: Meta-dominant, often 80-90% of digital budget. Conversion optimization and retargeting precision drive this. Spotify appears in larger DTC brands as a brand-building layer after they have established their Meta conversion machine.

• B2B and SaaS: Meta is primary (LinkedIn is the real competitor here, not Spotify). Spotify sometimes appears in B2B budgets for specific audience contexts — developer podcast sponsorships, for instance — but is rarely more than 10% of digital spend.

• Entertainment and streaming: Spotify-heavy, for obvious reasons. Platforms like Netflix, Disney+, and Amazon Prime use Spotify as a category-native channel. The audience context (people listening to media) is directly relevant.

• Fitness and wellness: Strong Spotify allocation, often 25-40%. The workout and running playlist contexts are among Spotify's most valuable targeting segments for this vertical.

For tracking how brands in your specific category are allocating creative resources across platforms, AdLibrary's multi-platform-ads coverage and ad timeline analysis let you see what platforms a brand is running on, how long specific creative has been live, and what format patterns they are scaling. That is the competitive intelligence layer that turns a general budget allocation framework into a category-specific one.

For deeper guidance on building a cross-platform competitive monitoring system, see automate competitor ad monitoring and campaign benchmarking use cases.

Podcast Ads: Spotify's Structural Advantage

One Spotify format deserves its own section because it has no direct Meta equivalent: podcast advertising.

Spotify's Podcast Audience Network allows programmatic insertion of ads across Spotify-hosted podcasts and thousands of third-party podcast shows. This is not the same as buying a direct host-read sponsorship from a specific podcast — it is targeted inventory across a network, which means you get contextual and demographic targeting applied across a broad podcast inventory rather than betting everything on one show's audience.

Podcast ads carry a trust dynamic that other audio formats do not. Research from Edison Research consistently shows that podcast listeners report high receptivity to host-read ads and strong brand recall from podcast placements. Even network-placed (non-host-read) podcast ads benefit from the implicit endorsement context of the listening relationship.

Meta has no podcast equivalent. This is the clearest category where Spotify has a unique capability. If your brand benefits from the trust dynamics of podcast adjacency — particularly in consumer health, finance, self-improvement, or B2B professional contexts where podcast audiences skew — Spotify's podcast inventory is worth a dedicated test budget separate from your audio ad allocation.

Three Common Mistakes When Starting Spotify Ads

For practitioners launching Spotify for the first time after a Meta background, three predictable mistakes emerge consistently.

Mistake 1: Writing a visual ad as an audio ad. Meta copy is visual — it relies on the image or video to carry context. Audio ads need to be self-contained sentences. "Up to 50% off this weekend — tap the banner now" does not work as audio to a user who cannot see the banner. Every audio ad should make complete sense with eyes closed.

Mistake 2: Expecting direct-response attribution. If you set up a Spotify campaign expecting to see ROAS comparable to a Meta retargeting campaign, you will be disappointed. Spotify is not optimized for that measurement. Set brand awareness KPIs (reach, frequency, completion rate, brand lift if available) and evaluate the campaign on those terms. Mixing performance expectations with awareness channels produces misleading data.

Mistake 3: Running once and concluding. Audio brand building requires frequency. A single $500 Spotify campaign is not a test of whether Spotify works for your brand — it is a test of whether your audio creative is technically functional. Meaningful brand lift data requires sustained exposure over 4-8 weeks and sufficient impressions to run a valid lift study. Budget accordingly before launching.

For a deeper look at multi-platform creative testing methodology, the ad creative testing use case and how to analyze ad performance at AdLibrary cover the measurement and iteration framework that applies across both platforms.

And for understanding the cost-per-mille-cpm, cost-per-click, and frequency mechanics that govern both platforms' delivery, the AdLibrary glossary entries give you the definitions and benchmarks without the vendor spin.