Compare

DoubleVerify vs Integral Ad Science

The two dominant independent ad-verification vendors, measuring viewability, fraud and brand safety to the same standards. Fit usually beats methodology.

Side by side

	DoubleVerify	Integral Ad Science
Vendor	DoubleVerify	Integral Ad Science
Pricing model	Quote only	Quote only
Free tier	No	No
Deployment	Cloud	Cloud
Open source	No	No
Best for	Advertisers and agencies needing independent verification that paid impressions were viewable, human and brand-safe.	Advertisers and agencies needing independent verification that paid impressions were viewable, human and brand-safe.
Pricing	Custom quotes based on measured ad impression volume; pricing is not published. Pricing has not been verified yet — see the vendor's site.	Custom quotes based on measured ad impression volume; pricing is not published. Pricing has not been verified yet — see the vendor's site.
Features	Viewability measurement against MRC-accredited standards Ad fraud and invalid traffic (IVT) detection Brand safety and suitability content-context classification Pre-bid and post-bid campaign protection Coverage across display, video, CTV and social Attention and outcome-quality measurement add-ons	Viewability measurement against MRC-accredited standards Ad fraud and invalid traffic detection Brand safety and suitability classification Contextual targeting and avoidance segments Coverage across display, video, CTV, audio and social Attention-based quality metrics

Verdict

DoubleVerify and Integral Ad Science do the same job by the same accreditation: independent, third-party measurement of whether a paid impression was viewable, delivered to a real person rather than fraudulent traffic, and placed in brand-safe, suitable context — reported against MRC-accredited standards used across the industry. Neither measures whether the campaign drove business outcomes; both plug into the same kind of ad-serving chain (tags on the creative or placement) across programmatic display, video, CTV and social, and both integrate with the same major platforms — Google Display & Video 360, The Trade Desk, Meta Ads, YouTube, Amazon Ads.

This is not a comparison with a clean technical winner. IAS and DoubleVerify are the two dominant vendors in this specific space and are frequently run side by side by the same advertiser, or swapped depending on platform coverage and contract terms, rather than differentiated by fundamentally different methodology. Neither publishes pricing; both quote by measured impression volume.

Choose DoubleVerify if

Your current DSP or ad-server relationships already have a deeper or more mature DoubleVerify integration.
You want attention and outcome-quality measurement add-ons bundled from the same vendor as core verification.
Contract terms and existing account history favor DoubleVerify for your specific media mix.

Choose Integral Ad Science if

Your current stack integrates more cleanly with IAS specifically, including contextual targeting and avoidance segments as part of the same product.
You want attention-based quality metrics from the same vendor as core viewability and fraud measurement.
Existing relationships or contract terms favor IAS for your media mix.

The honest caveat

If you're choosing between these two for the first time, run a side-by-side pilot on the same campaign rather than deciding from feature pages — the published feature lists overlap almost completely, and real differences tend to show up in measurement discrepancies and platform-specific integration quality that only appear with your actual traffic. Many large advertisers eventually run both rather than choosing one permanently, specifically to cross-check measurement discrepancies.

Last reviewed September 22, 2026

Install