Cross-Platform Performance Comparison
Analysis
Compare performance using consistent metrics across platforms.
Overview
This workflow shows you how to compare advertising performance across multiple platforms — Google Ads, Meta, LinkedIn, and others — using a single, consistent set of metrics. Because every platform reports slightly differently (different attribution windows, different labels for the same idea, different default currencies), a naive side-by-side comparison usually misleads. OpenAds normalises the data first, then produces a like-for-like view so you can see where your money actually works hardest.
The outcome is a clean comparison report: one table, one currency, one time window, and one definition per metric. From that you can reallocate budget with confidence, retire underperformers, and brief stakeholders without caveats. OpenAds handles the research and the proposal; you keep the final say on any change that moves spend.
When to use it
Reach for this workflow whenever you run active spend on more than one platform and need to decide where the next rupee should go. It is especially valuable at planning checkpoints and when results feel inconsistent between channels.
Monthly or quarterly budget reviews across two or more platforms.
When one channel appears to be outperforming but you suspect attribution differences.
Before reallocating a fixed budget between Google, Meta, and LinkedIn.
When preparing a performance summary for leadership or a client.
After a pricing, creative, or landing-page change that affects every channel at once.
Example prompts
"Compare Google Ads and Meta performance for the last 30 days using CPA and ROAS in ₹."
"Show me spend, conversions, and CPA side by side across all active platforms this quarter."
"Which platform gives the lowest CPA for lead-generation campaigns right now?"
"Normalise everything to a 7-day click attribution window and re-run the comparison."
"We have ₹500000 to allocate next month — model splitting it toward the more efficient channel."
"Flag any campaign whose CPA is more than 40% above its platform average."
"Prepare a one-page cross-platform summary I can send to the leadership team."
What OpenAds prepares vs what you approve
OpenAds performs the analysis — pulling figures from each connected platform, normalising currency and attribution, and computing consistent metrics. It then builds a proposal, such as a recommended budget reallocation with a modelled effect on blended CPA and ROAS. Nothing that changes live spend happens automatically. The approval step is yours: you review each proposed budget move, adjust or reject it, and only then does OpenAds move to execution, applying the changes on the underlying platforms through the secure MCP connection. Analysis and proposal are always safe to run; execution waits for your explicit sign-off.
What to look at
Metric / signalWhy it mattersWhat to watch for Spend (₹)The denominator for every efficiency measure.Ensure all platforms use ₹ and the same date range. CPA (₹)Cost to acquire one conversion — the core efficiency comparison.Confirm each platform counts the same conversion event. ROASRevenue returned per rupee spent.Revenue must be tracked consistently across channels. CTRCreative and targeting relevance.High CTR with poor CPA signals a weak landing page. Conversion volumeWhether efficiency holds at scale.A low CPA on tiny volume may not be reallocatable. Attribution windowThe biggest cause of false comparisons.Apply one identical window to every platform.
Common pitfalls & best practices
Mismatched attribution windows. Always normalise to a single window before comparing — otherwise Meta's longer default will flatter it.
Comparing raw numbers, not definitions. A "conversion" on one platform may be a click, on another a purchase; align the event first.
Ignoring volume. A superb CPA on 12 conversions is not a reason to move the whole budget; prioritise channels that scale.
Currency drift. Confirm every figure is converted to ₹ at a consistent rate before drawing conclusions.
Reallocating on one snapshot. Check the trend over several periods, not a single good or bad week, before shifting spend.
The workflow, step by step
Define the comparison scope. Tell OpenAds which platforms, which campaigns or objectives, and which date range to compare — for example the last 30 days across Google and Meta.
Agree the metric set. Confirm the shared metrics (spend, impressions, clicks, CTR, CPC, conversions, CPA, ROAS) and the single currency and attribution window to apply everywhere.
Let OpenAds pull and normalise the data. It retrieves each platform's figures, converts currency to ₹, and maps platform-specific labels onto your agreed definitions.
Review the normalised comparison. OpenAds presents a unified table plus a short written read-out flagging the largest gaps and outliers.
Interrogate the outliers. Ask why a channel looks strong or weak — often it is attribution window, audience overlap, or a single runaway campaign skewing the average.
Request a reallocation proposal. Ask OpenAds to model shifting budget toward the more efficient channel, with expected effect on blended CPA and ROAS.
Approve the changes you want. Review the proposed budget moves and approve, edit, or reject each one before anything executes.
Schedule the next comparison. Save the scope so the same like-for-like report can be regenerated on a regular cadence.
Run this workflow through your AI assistant.