The mediation platform you choose affects how much control you have over your ad stack, how much engineering time you spend maintaining it, and whether your eCPMs grow or plateau over time.

Three platforms dominate the conversation for mobile app publishers: ironSource (now Unity LevelPlay), AppLovin MAX, and Google AdMob. Each has a legitimate claim to being the right choice depending on what you’re building, how big your audience is, and what you’re optimizing for.

Before getting into the comparison, one important update: ironSource Ads direct demand was officially sunset on April 30, 2026. The ironSource Ads network stopped serving direct demand campaigns on that date. Unity LevelPlay as a mediation platform continues, but publishers who were relying on ironSource Ads as a demand source within their stack need to account for this change. More on what it means in the ironSource section below.

What to evaluate when choosing a mediation platform

The headline metric most publishers check is eCPM, but that’s only one part of the picture. Here’s what actually determines whether a platform works for your specific situation:

eCPM performance and fill rate: Does the platform consistently deliver competitive CPMs across your geographies and ad formats? Fill rate matters as much as CPM. A platform with high CPMs and 60% fill can underperform one with moderate CPMs and 95% fill.

Demand quality and breadth: How many DSPs, ad networks, and programmatic buyers compete for your inventory? More real competition means higher effective yields.

Bidding architecture: Does the platform support genuine in-app bidding (real-time auctions) or rely primarily on waterfall? In-app bidding drives more revenue and less manual optimization work in most cases.

SDK performance and stability: A bloated or buggy SDK hurts app ratings, increases crashes, and inflates load times. These have direct downstream effects on user retention and revenue.

Reporting and analytics: Can you get granular data on ad unit performance, network-level eCPMs, and cohort-level monetization metrics? Without good data, optimization becomes guesswork.

Integration and maintenance burden: How much engineering time does initial setup require, and what does ongoing maintenance look like across SDK updates and network adapter changes?

Publisher controls: Can you set floor prices, block ad categories, and control frequency without jumping through hoops?

Support quality: When something breaks, how fast and how useful is the response?

ironSource / Unity LevelPlay

ironSource, operating as Unity LevelPlay since the 2022 merger, built its reputation on gaming monetization and in-app bidding before most platforms took real-time auctions seriously. LevelPlay as a mediation platform remains active and continues to support in-app bidding across multiple demand sources.

The April 2026 ironSource Ads sunset

The most significant recent development: Unity sunset ironSource Ads direct demand on April 30, 2026. As of that date, ironSource Ads stopped serving direct demand campaigns. Publishers who had ironSource Ads configured as a demand source within their LevelPlay or other mediation setups need to replace it with alternative demand sources. LevelPlay mediation itself is unaffected. The mediation platform continues to operate and support third-party bidders. But the ironSource Ads network as a source of direct gaming demand no longer exists.

This is a meaningful change for publishers who were using ironSource Ads specifically for its gaming-focused advertiser demand. The practical implication is that LevelPlay’s value proposition now rests entirely on its mediation and bidding infrastructure rather than on any proprietary demand advantage.

Where LevelPlay still excels

The mediation infrastructure is solid. LevelPlay’s in-app bidding setup, A/B testing tools, and SDK consolidation for Unity developers remain genuinely useful. Publishers already in the Unity ecosystem benefit from direct integration via the Unity Editor, which reduces the setup friction significantly compared to competing platforms.

For Unity game developers specifically, the tight connection between game development tooling and monetization management is a real workflow advantage. You can manage ad units, run A/B tests, and access revenue reporting from within the same platform environment you’re building in.

Cross-promotion and UA integration: for studios running UA campaigns through Unity, the closed-loop data between acquisition and monetization is still available through Unity Ads and Vector, even without ironSource Ads direct demand.

Limitations

The removal of ironSource Ads direct demand reduces the platform’s competitive edge for gaming publishers who were relying on that specific demand source. You’ll need to replace it with AppLovin, Meta, or other bidding partners within LevelPlay.

Non-gaming apps still underperform on LevelPlay. The platform’s demand mix has always skewed toward mobile gaming advertisers, and without ironSource Ads as a differentiating demand source, this is even more relevant.

Ongoing uncertainty about Unity’s corporate direction is a legitimate consideration for long-term planning. The company has gone through significant restructuring since the merger.

Ideal for: Unity game developers who want tight development-to-monetization workflow integration. Publishers already invested in Unity’s ecosystem who want mediation infrastructure without migrating platforms.

Not ideal for: Non-gaming publishers, anyone who was relying on ironSource Ads direct demand specifically, publishers who need certainty about long-term platform stability.

AppLovin MAX

AppLovin MAX has established itself as the dominant mediation platform for publishers who are serious about maximizing revenue and have the team capacity to use advanced tooling effectively.

AppLovin’s model creates a meaningful flywheel: their own advertising business (Axon, their AI-powered DSP) competes in MAX auctions alongside other demand partners. MAX runs a first-price unified auction across 25+ SDK networks and 20+ in-app bidders, with Google DV360 demand accessible via AppLovin Exchange. More competition per impression generally means higher clearing prices.

Where MAX excels

eCPM performance at scale is the headline advantage. AppLovin’s own advertising business runs significant mobile ad spend and competes aggressively in MAX auctions. Publishers with high-traffic apps consistently report that MAX outperforms competing platforms on effective eCPM once properly configured. AppLovin generated $5.48 billion in revenue in 2025, a scale that reflects the depth of demand competing on the platform.

In-app bidding breadth is best-in-class. MAX supports the widest range of bidding partners of any platform in this comparison. The integration work with major ad networks has been done at the platform level, so publishers don’t manage individual network relationships.

Reporting and analytics depth is a genuine differentiator. MAX dashboards provide granular data on ad unit performance, ARPDAU, eCPM by network, country, and device type. The Network Comparison Report lets you see exactly which demand sources are winning impressions and at what CPMs. For data-driven optimization, this transparency is significant.

Publisher controls are robust. Floor prices, ad category blocking, frequency capping, and ad load management all have configurable levers that sophisticated publishers need.

No-code A/B testing across waterfall and bidding configurations lets you test demand setups systematically.

Limitations

The conflict of interest is real and worth thinking through. AppLovin runs both a major DSP and the auction platform. While the company maintains its own demand doesn’t receive preferential treatment in auctions, this is a structural concern that sophisticated publishers should factor into their evaluation.

Smaller publishers get less attention. MAX is optimized for scale. If you have low daily active users or are early in monetization, your account won’t get the same deal access, support, or optimization attention as publishers doing significant revenue. Meaningful support typically requires meaningful revenue.

Integration complexity is higher than AdMob. Setting up MAX correctly (configuring network adapters, testing waterfall versus bidding configurations, establishing floor pricing) requires real engineering time. Ongoing maintenance across SDK updates is an ongoing cost.

MAX rewards active management. Publishers who integrate it and walk away consistently underperform relative to those who actively engage with the analytics and optimize configurations over time. If your team doesn’t have dedicated ad ops capacity, you won’t capture the full value.

Ideal for: Mid-to-large scale gaming and non-gaming publishers who prioritize eCPM maximization, have engineering resources to integrate properly, and have the analytical capacity to act on data. Studios pairing UA with monetization benefit from the closed-loop attribution insights.

Not ideal for: Early-stage publishers under 50K-100K DAU who won’t get meaningful support and can’t justify the integration complexity relative to returns. Publishers with limited ad ops capacity who can’t actively manage the platform.

Google AdMob

Google AdMob is the most widely used mobile ad monetization platform in the world. Built on Google’s advertising infrastructure and deeply integrated with Google Ads and DV360, it delivers the most diverse buyer pool of any platform here and the most reliable fill globally.

For many publishers, AdMob is where monetization starts. For a meaningful subset, it’s where they stay. Not because it’s the highest performer, but because its combination of reliability, accessibility, and fill stability is genuinely hard to replace.

Where AdMob excels

Demand breadth through Google’s ecosystem is the structural advantage. Google’s advertising network is the largest on the planet. AdMob consistently delivers high fill rates across every geography, including markets where other networks have thin demand. For publishers with significant traffic in Southeast Asia, Latin America, the Middle East, or other emerging markets, AdMob often outperforms specialized networks on fill rate even when those networks offer higher CPMs on filled impressions.

Ease of integration is unmatched. The SDK is well-documented, widely supported, and integrates cleanly into both Android and iOS. For a solo developer or small team, the time to first revenue is faster than either MAX or LevelPlay.

No minimum traffic requirements for basic access. AdMob is genuinely accessible at any scale. You can start generating revenue from day one without meeting thresholds or going through account approval processes.

The upgrade path to Google Ad Manager is documented and supported. Publishers who outgrow basic AdMob have a natural migration path to a full GAM setup with Open Bidding, private marketplace deals, and more granular control, without switching platforms entirely.

Policy compliance tooling is the most mature of the three. For publishers in regulated verticals, children’s apps with COPPA requirements, or any publisher operating in markets with complex privacy regulation, AdMob’s built-in compliance tooling and clearer documentation reduce risk.

Payment reliability is best-in-class. Google’s payment infrastructure is trusted, offers the lowest payment threshold of the three, and supports the widest range of payment methods across the most countries.

Limitations

eCPM ceiling is lower for premium inventory. This is the consistent, verified pattern from publishers who have run side-by-side comparisons. AdMob’s effective eCPMs for high-value formats like rewarded video in competitive gaming markets tend to underperform MAX. Google’s demand is broad but not always the highest bidder for premium placements.

Open Bidding, Google’s in-app bidding solution, is less competitive than MAX’s bidding setup. The integration depth and number of serious third-party bidders competing in Open Bidding is narrower than what MAX has assembled.

Mediation controls are more limited. The level of control, granularity of reporting, and flexibility in configuring demand setups is materially less than MAX.

Policy enforcement can feel opaque. Google has suspended or restricted AdMob accounts with limited explanation and difficult appeal processes. For publishers running all revenue through a single Google account, this concentration risk is real.

Human support is minimal at lower tiers. Without significant revenue, meaningful support access is difficult.

Ideal for: Early-stage or small-to-mid-scale publishers who need a fast, reliable monetization start. Publishers with global traffic, especially in emerging markets. Developers building children’s apps or compliance-sensitive products. Any publisher who wants reasonable results without active management overhead.

Not ideal for: Publishers actively trying to maximize eCPM who are doing meaningful daily revenue. Anyone who has had prior policy violations with Google. App categories that Google’s policies restrict regardless of publisher size.

Also see: Best AdMob Alternatives for App Monetization

Side-by-side comparison

Criterion	ironSource / LevelPlay	AppLovin MAX	Google AdMob
eCPM ceiling (gaming)	Medium (post-iAds sunset)	Highest	Medium
eCPM ceiling (non-gaming)	Medium	High	Medium-High
Fill rate	High	High	Highest
In-app bidding maturity	High	Best-in-class	Medium (Open Bidding)
Integration complexity	Medium	High	Low
Reporting depth	Medium	Best-in-class	Basic-Medium
Publisher controls	Medium	High	Medium
Support (large publishers)	Medium	High	Medium
Support (small publishers)	Low	Low	Low
Policy flexibility	Medium	Medium	Most restrictive
Payment reliability	Good	Good	Best
ironSource Ads demand	Sunset Apr 2026	N/A	N/A
Ideal scale	Mid-Large (Unity ecosystem)	Large	Any

How to choose based on your situation

You’re new to monetization or under 50K DAU

Start with AdMob. The integration time is minimal, documentation is excellent, fill rates are reliable globally, and you can validate your monetization model without complex setup. Revisit this decision once you’re at 50K+ DAU and generating meaningful daily revenue.

You’re a mobile game developer at 100K+ DAU

Evaluate AppLovin MAX as your primary mediation layer. Its gaming demand depth and in-app bidding infrastructure are specifically built for this use case. You can add LevelPlay and other networks as bidding partners within MAX rather than choosing one platform exclusively. For a fuller breakdown of your options, see the best app monetization platforms guide.

You’re a Unity developer who wants minimal friction

LevelPlay integrates directly into the Unity Editor, which is a genuine workflow advantage. Just account for the ironSource Ads sunset in your demand configuration. You’ll want AppLovin, Meta, or other bidding partners filling the gap left by iAds.

You’re a non-gaming publisher at meaningful scale

AppLovin MAX is likely your best bet for eCPM maximization if you have the ad ops capacity to manage it. The demand pool is genuinely broad beyond gaming. If your team doesn’t have dedicated ad ops capacity, consider staying on AdMob or adding a managed layer like UndrAds to handle optimization while you build internal expertise.

Your app has significant emerging market traffic

AdMob should anchor your stack for fill rate stability in Southeast Asia, Latin America, MENA, and other emerging markets. Layer premium demand through MAX on top for high-value inventory segments. For APAC specifically, adding InMobi or Mintegral as additional demand sources is worth testing. See the in-app bidding vs. waterfall guide for how to structure this.

You’re managing a portfolio of apps across categories

AppLovin MAX as a central mediation layer with AdMob and LevelPlay as demand sources within it is the most common setup for serious portfolio publishers. Single reporting layer, multiple competing demand sources.

Your primary constraint is engineering resources

AdMob, clearly. MAX’s value is real but requires active management to capture. An under-managed MAX setup can underperform a properly configured AdMob stack.

The honest answer

For most publishers at meaningful scale, the answer isn’t a single platform. It’s a stack where these platforms work together.

AppLovin MAX delivers the highest eCPMs for publishers with scale, active ad ops capacity, and gaming or competitive Tier-1 traffic. Unity LevelPlay is most valuable for Unity game developers who want tight development-to-monetization workflow integration, accounting now for the ironSource Ads sunset. AdMob remains the most reliable starting point and the strongest anchor for emerging market fill, payment reliability, and compliance-sensitive categories.

The gap between average and exceptional monetization performance rarely lives in the platform choice itself. It lives in how actively the platform is managed: floor price discipline, network-level performance monitoring, ad load tuning by user segment, and responding to demand environment shifts. Platform selection gets you in the game. Active optimization is what separates publishers who plateau from those who keep growing ARPDAU.

Related reading

Want help optimizing your current mediation stack? Talk to the UndrAds team.

ironSource vs AppLovin MAX vs AdMob: Which Mediation Stack in 2026?

Rashmita Behera