Index › GTM › Marketing › Native ads › MGID vs Teads
Native and content advertising · November 2026 Edition

MGID vs Teads

Zero of fourteen models named MGID first on the direct prompt; zero named Teads. Both were named by all fourteen models and MGID carries 43 labels and Teads 75, so the shares are not directly comparable.

MGID

accepted challenger

Named in three categories this edition.

Teads

criticized challenger

By Q28872999, New York City, United States, founded 2005. Named in five categories this edition.

First-choice share12%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate21%36%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#3#6A position in a field of 10; printed, not drawn.
Labels4375A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, MGID reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.LinkedIn Sponsored Content was named alongside these two in thirteen of the fourteen direct answers. StackAdapt vs MGID · StackAdapt vs Teads · LinkedIn Sponsored Content vs MGID

Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all fourteen models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category; every quote names the model and the prompt it came from. Both figures come from the native and content advertising page.

By framing

How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
MGIDFirst choices, of fourteen modelsTeads
Direct002 against Teads
Paraphrase007 against Teads
Comparative07
Budget-constrained601 against MGID · 8 against Teads
Scale-constrained011 against MGID
Negative027 against MGID · 9 against Teads
Bars are first choices, 0 to 14 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to fourteen.

Across every category in the November 2026 Edition, MGID and Teads were named in the same answer 117 times, of the 130 answers naming MGID and the 227 naming Teads. In those answers Teads took the first choice eight times and MGID twenty-nine.

Every model, every framing

The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where MGID and Teads stood in it.
ModelDirectParaphraseComparativeBudget-constrainedScale-constrainedNegative
Claude Haiku 4.5
GPT-5.4 mini
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Perplexity Sonar
Grok 4.20
Mistral Small
DeepSeek V4 Flash
Llama 4 Maverick
Qwen 3.7 Flash
Kimi K2
GLM 4.7 FlashX
MiniMax M2.5
GPT-6 Luna
Muse Glimmer 30B
MGID Teads first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, MGID on the left and Teads on the right.

The direct prompt

The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where MGID and Teads stood in it.

Neither was the first choice, one was named

9 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.
Claude Haiku 4.5LinkedIn Sponsored Content alternatives: Forbes BrandVoice, Harvard Business Review, LinkedIn articles, Quora Ads, Taboola, Teads
Gemini 3.5 FlashLinkedIn Sponsored Content alternatives: Dianomi, StackAdapt, Taboola, Teads
Grok 4.20LinkedIn Sponsored Content alternatives: StackAdapt, Taboola, Teads
Mistral SmallLinkedIn Sponsored Content alternatives: StackAdapt, Teads, The Trade Desk
DeepSeek V4 FlashStackAdapt alternatives: LinkedIn Sponsored Content, Teads
Kimi K2StackAdapt alternatives: LinkedIn Sponsored Content, MGID, Revcontent
GLM 4.7 FlashXLinkedIn Sponsored Content alternatives: Influ2, StackAdapt, Taboola, Teads
MiniMax M2.5LinkedIn Sponsored Content alternatives: Google Demand Gen, Taboola, Teads
Muse Glimmer 30BStackAdapt alternatives: AdRoll, LinkedIn Sponsored Content, MGID, Revcontent, Taboola, Teads

Neither was named

5 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.
GPT-5.4 miniStackAdapt alternatives: AdRoll ABM, LinkedIn Sponsored Content
Perplexity SonarLinkedIn Sponsored Content alternatives: AdRoll ABM, StackAdapt
Llama 4 MaverickStackAdapt alternatives: AdRoll, HubSpot
Qwen 3.7 FlashStackAdapt alternatives: LinkedIn Sponsored Content
GPT-6 LunaLinkedIn Sponsored Content alternatives: StackAdapt

Bold names in an answer are the products the judge labeled a first choice; a model naming several gives each of them that label. The full answer text for every row is in the record.

By buyer segment

The same question asked on behalf of a different buyer. Each standing is computed within its segment and they are never added together. The figures above are the mid-market standing, which is the one the category orders by.
Small business
MGID leads by thirty-three points.
MGID33%#2 of 9
Teads0%#9 of 9
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
MGID leads by ten points.
MGID12%#3 of 10
Teads2%#6 of 10
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
The order flips: Teads leads at enterprise.
Teads6%#4 of 10
MGID0%#9 of 10
The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about MGID

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.

“Frequently cited as an arbitrage platform with low-quality publisher mix.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · negative prompt · hard negative
“These smaller networks carry elevated invalid traffic baselines” Kimi K2 · negative prompt · hard negative
“appear in "top lists" but have scattered complaints about traffic quality or stricter policies—treat them as mid-tier with due diligence” Grok 4.20 · negative prompt · soft negative
“MGID stands out as the best native advertising platform for companies with a limited budget.” Grok 4.20 · budget prompt · first choice
“MGID is likely the best starting point for a company with a limited budget.” Perplexity Sonar · budget prompt · first choice
“or MGID for a mainstream self-serve native network with a $100 minimum deposit” Muse Glimmer 30B · budget prompt · first choice

What the models said about Teads

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of seven in this category shown.

“Taboola and Outbrain - Content Recommendation Widgets ... repeatedly called out for low-intent, curiosity-driven traffic and poor transparency” Muse Glimmer 30B · negative prompt · hard negative
“Platforms to Avoid on a Tight Budget - Taboola/Outbrain managed accounts: Often require $3,000–$5,000+/month minimums” Kimi K2 · budget prompt · hard negative
“Platforms to Avoid (or approach carefully) with a Small Budget ... Outbrain: Generally requires a minimum of $600 per month” Qwen 3.7 Flash · budget prompt · hard negative
“Taboola and Outbrain dominate the content recommendation space with massive reach and premium publisher networks” GLM 4.7 FlashX · comparative prompt · first choice
“Outbrain is often preferred by premium publishers and offers advanced AI-driven personalization and higher CTRs” Mistral Small · comparative prompt · first choice
“For Advertisers (Tier 1 / Brand Safe): Taboola, Outbrain, Nativo, TripleLift, Yahoo Native, NewsBreak” Gemini 3.5 Flash · negative prompt · first choice
Also compared

Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category, each against each. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.