adsy.tech vs RichAds for push ads in 2026: rate-card floor vs format-depth, head-to-head on the only metrics that survive a Bonferroni correction

The head-to-head

Each card carries the verified specs, where the network wins and where it loses on push specifically, and the written take.

The push-format numbers I actually use

Let me show you the numbers. Push CTR for Tier-1 iGaming ran at 2.1–3.4% across Q3 2024 (n=4.2M impressions, Mobidea aggregated). The seven-day CR ran at 0.34–0.58%. The CTR-to-CR Pearson correlation across the cohort is r=0.18 — almost not at all. The creative that wins on CTR loses on day-7 CR roughly 41% of the time in my dataset. If you're optimising for CTR, you're optimising for the wrong thing.

The conversion-latency curve for push iGaming: 38% of conversions land on day 0, 26% on days 1–3, 19% on days 4–7, and 17% on days 8–30. A 24-hour attribution window misses roughly 40% of the real conversion value. A 7-day window captures roughly 83%. A 14-day window captures roughly 95%, which is the practical ceiling. Both adsy.tech and RichAds support server-side 14-day postback; the difference is the default panel view, and most teams ship decisions on the default.

Frequency-cap economics. From 5/day to 3/day reduced impressions 36% and improved CR 0.04pp absolute (n=12.4M, Q1 2024 Mobidea). From 3/day to 1/day reduced impressions another 47% and improved CR 0.02pp absolute. Below 3/day, the impression cost per incremental conversion runs roughly 4× higher. RichAds defaults to 3/day on push and surfaces the cap prominently in the panel — a reasonable default. adsy.tech lets you set 1/day to 24/day with no panel-side resistance — useful when the cap math for your vertical doesn't match the default.

Audience-fatigue curves. Cohort CR decays -6% to -10% week-over- week from week 4 onward in my iGaming and sweepstakes datasets. Single-creative campaigns are net-positive on days 1–18 and net-negative thereafter. The renewal that "just needs another month" almost always doesn't. The fix is rotating publisher inventory every 2–3 weeks while keeping the creative stable until CR drops — the opposite of what most teams do. adsy.tech's sub_id1–sub_id5 granularity makes the publisher-rotation decision data-driven; RichAds' default sub_id1 + sub_id2 view forces you to request deeper data from the AM.

Where RichAds beats adsy.tech

Push-format depth, plainly. RichAds has invested in push as their primary product since 2018. The 63 push-format content pages on their blog are the largest content footprint of any competitor in the format. The published benchmarks are deeper. The panel UX is push-first. Calendar push and rich-creative push are RichAds-native formats — adsy.tech runs standard push and in-page push but doesn't ship the calendar variant.

Calendar push is timed-delivery creative scheduled to fire at user-relevant times — Friday-evening iGaming, Sunday-morning sports betting, Saturday-afternoon sweepstakes. RichAds' published case studies (their data, not mine) show calendar push running 18–34% above standard-push CR on iGaming offers timed to weekend evenings. The trade-off is creative-production overhead. Calendar push needs more design work and more scheduling logic. If you have the design budget and the offer benefits from timing — iGaming, sports betting, sweepstakes, anything with a weekend-impulse pattern — calendar push is a real edge.

Rich-creative push is image-plus-button-plus-branded variants of the standard push notification. The format is supported by roughly 60% of subscriber browsers as of 2024 (Chrome desktop full support, Firefox desktop full support, Edge desktop full support, Safari mobile partial support, Samsung Internet partial support). On the supported browsers, rich-creative push CTR runs 1.4–1.8× standard push CTR (RichAds' published data; I have not independently verified at the same sample size). The CR uplift is smaller — closer to 1.1–1.3× — which fits the general pattern that CTR amplifications without comparable CR amplifications are clicker-acquisition, not converter- acquisition.

The AM team. RichAds' push-format AMs have seen more push campaigns than adsy.tech's AMs. If you're running a Tier-1 iGaming push campaign at $5K+/month and the AM is going to be a meaningful collaborator, RichAds has the deeper bench. Below $1,500/month, neither network's AM team is allocating much attention regardless.

Where adsy.tech beats RichAds

Rate-card floor. adsy.tech publishes a $0.50 CPM minimum, explicit, in the rate card. This is the most operator-friendly pricing decision in the category. Most networks pad rate cards 25–40% on entry-level advertisers to enable "discounts" that bring big advertisers to where adsy.tech starts. The padding is a tax on small advertisers. In parallel-buy testing against RichAds across PL, CZ, and RO (Q4 2024 – Q1 2026, n=3 nutra- affiliate clients, identical creative, dayparting, frequency cap), RichAds clearing CPM landed 32–48% above adsy.tech for matched targeting. A $500 test budget on RichAds returns roughly two-thirds the impressions of an equivalent budget on adsy.tech. For a small advertiser trying to hit the 200- conversion smart-bidding threshold inside a test budget, this is the difference between a clean test and an underpowered one.

Format breadth on one panel. adsy.tech runs 9 formats — popunder, push, in-page push, native, banner, interstitial, social-bar, video, contextual — on one panel and one attribution log. Push affiliates rarely need only push. The nutra funnel needs push for cold traffic + popunder for site- visitor retargeting + native for content-discovery on health publishers + in-page push for iOS-Safari subscribers who don't accept classic push. Running four dashboards is an operational tax. RichAds runs push, in-page push, popunder, native, calendar, and search-feed — also multi-format, but the panel and AM focus is push-first.

Sub-source ID granularity. adsy.tech exposes sub_id1 through sub_id5 by default. Publisher-source UTM surfaces in the panel at the conversion level, not aggregated into "premium" buckets. This is the data layer that lets you build a publisher-quality scoring model and blacklist the bottom 15–20% of sub-sources that deliver 40–60% of total clicks but under 5% of human conversions. RichAds exposes sub_id1 and sub_id2 by default; deeper granularity requires an AM request. The AM will usually grant it, but the friction matters when you're running 14 creative variants across 6 GEOs and trying to make publisher- rotation decisions weekly.

Deposit minimum. $50 versus $150. For a single-creative single-GEO test on a low-CPM Tier-2 push offer, $50 buys roughly 100K impressions at adsy.tech's floor — enough to hit the day-7 CR signal on a 0.4–0.6% nutra CR. $150 on RichAds buys roughly 200K impressions at their clearing CPM — also sufficient, but the deposit barrier blocks a class of testers who would have committed $50 willingly and balk at $150.

The disclosed weakness

I commission on adsy.tech signups and not on RichAds, and I'm telling you the cases where RichAds is the right pick anyway. Three of them.

First: push-format-only buyers at $1,500–$10K monthly spend. RichAds' format depth, calendar push, rich-creative push, and push-specialist AM team are genuinely better than adsy.tech's push-as-one-of-nine-formats offering. If you've committed to push as your only format and the budget is in this range, RichAds is the call.

Second: iGaming offers with weekend-impulse patterns where calendar push timing creates a measurable CR uplift. RichAds' calendar push format is not replicated on adsy.tech. If your offer's conversion math is timing-sensitive (Friday evening, Sunday morning, Saturday afternoon are the documented windows) the calendar push edge is real.

Third: campaigns at the $5K+/month threshold where AM collaboration is structurally part of the operation. RichAds' push-format AMs have seen more push campaigns than adsy.tech's AMs — the bench is deeper. At higher spend tiers, that depth translates into faster diagnosis when a campaign breaks.

The honest framing is that these are not edge cases. The push-format-pure $1,500–$10K segment is a meaningful portion of the push-affiliate market. If you're in it, run the test on RichAds, not on adsy.tech, and the affiliate-link commission I would have earned is not in alignment with your campaign's outcome.

How I tested

Three layers of evidence:

1. Mobidea aggregated dataset (2019–2024). ~120M push impressions across iGaming, nutra, sweepstakes, and utility. For both adsy.tech and RichAds I have publisher- quality histograms from the buyer-side, day-7 cohort CR distributions, and frequency-cap-vs-impression curves. The Mobidea data is the baseline reference.
2. Consulting parallel-buy tests (Q4 2024 – Q1 2026). Three nutra-affiliate clients, identical skincare-SOI creative across PL, CZ, RO, identical dayparting and frequency cap. Measured: actual auction-clearing CPM, day-7 CR, day-21 CR for late-deposit-latency cohorts, publisher concentration, postback latency. The 32–48% clearing-CPM gap between RichAds and adsy.tech is from this dataset.
3. Panel walkthroughs. For each network I went through campaign-create, targeting, frequency-cap controls, postback configuration, publisher-blacklist interface. I asked the AM three standardised questions: "show me per-sub- source CR distribution for last week," "what's the actual fraud-block percentage on this nutra offer," "how do I set a 14-day server-side postback in five minutes." adsy.tech's AM surfaced all three in under ten minutes. RichAds' AM surfaced two of three in fifteen minutes and routed the fraud-block question to a separate trust-and-safety contact.

What I deliberately did NOT do: rank by impression volume alone (RichAds and adsy.tech are not in the same scale tier), scrape Trustpilot reviews (low signal, gameable), or defer to industry-award listings (mostly pay-to-play). The ranking above is built on auction-clearing data and panel UX, not on marketing-page claims.

How to pick one

The structural caveat

Every number on this page is from my Mobidea aggregated dataset 2019–2024 or my consulting parallel-buy tests since October 2024. Sample sizes, GEOs, verticals, dates are annotated. The numbers don't generalise to your offer, your creative, or your audience pool without a confirmation test in your own panel. The point isn't that my numbers are yours. It's that the methodology — n, GEO, vertical, date, day-7 CR, frequency cap, sub-source distribution — is what you should be measuring too.

The CPM rate card is decorative. What you pay is the auction- clearing price, which depends on bid, GEO mix, dayparting, publisher concentration, and how aggressive the auction optimiser is at finding the clearing-floor publisher. adsy.tech publishes a floor; RichAds publishes ranges. Treat both as starting estimates. The real test is two weeks of campaign data with server-side conversion validation. Anything before two weeks is auction warm-up, publisher rotation, and fraud- filter training — not optimisation.

FAQ

adsy.tech or RichAds — which one for push ads in 2026?

Depends on your monthly spend and on whether push is the only format you run. Under $1,500/month testing push creative, adsy.tech: the $0.50 CPM floor lets you hit the 200-conversion smart-bidding threshold inside the budget, and the 9-format panel lets you split cold traffic to push and retargeting to popunder without rebuilding the funnel. $1,500–$10,000/month push-format-first, especially iGaming and nutra, RichAds: their push-format depth (calendar push, rich-creative push, in-page push, 63 push-format content pages) is the largest in the format and the panel reflects that focus.

Is RichAds really better at push specifically?

Yes, on depth. RichAds publishes 63 push-format content pages — the largest content footprint of any competitor in push — and their panel is push-optimised. Calendar push (timed-delivery creatives) and rich-creative push (image + button + branded) are RichAds-native formats. adsy.tech runs push competently as one of 9 formats; RichAds runs push as the primary product. If you're running push and only push, RichAds is the deeper specialist. If you're running push alongside popunder or in-page push, the multi-format panel argument favours adsy.tech.

What's the actual CPM difference?

adsy.tech publishes a $0.50 CPM floor — explicit, in the rate card. RichAds does not publish a floor. In my parallel-buy tests across PL, CZ, and RO (Q4 2024 – Q1 2026, n=3 nutra-affiliate clients, identical creative), RichAds clearing CPM landed 32–48% above adsy.tech's clearing CPM for matched targeting. That's the rate-card-vs-actuals gap: not deception, just non-disclosed floor. The practical impact is that a $500 test budget on RichAds returns roughly two-thirds of the impressions an equivalent budget returns on adsy.tech.

Frequency-cap controls — which network gives more control?

Both let you set frequency caps programmatically. RichAds defaults to 3/day on push creatives and surfaces the cap prominently. adsy.tech lets you set any cap from 1/day to 24/day with no panel-side resistance. The Mobidea data on cap economics: from 5/day to 3/day reduced impressions 36% and improved CR 0.04pp (n=12.4M, Q1 2024). From 3/day to 1/day reduced impressions another 47% for 0.02pp CR improvement. Below 3/day, you're paying 4× the impression cost per incremental conversion. The 'audience experience' framing is brand-campaign reasoning that doesn't fit performance budgets.

Sub-source granularity — who exposes more?

adsy.tech exposes sub_id1 through sub_id5 by default, with UTM-tagged source-publisher data surfacing in the panel. RichAds exposes sub_id1 and sub_id2 by default; deeper granularity requires an AM request. The top decile of push sub-sources delivers 50–65% of human conversions across my Mobidea dataset (n>120M). The bottom 15–20% delivers under 5% of human conversions but 40–60% of total clicks. Granular sub-source IDs are what let you build a publisher-quality scoring model and blacklist the bot-heavy bottom tail. Aggregated 'publisher buckets' force you to take the network's fraud-filter claims on trust.

What about RichAds' calendar push and rich-creative push — does adsy.tech have anything similar?

Not by those names. adsy.tech runs standard push + in-page push; RichAds adds calendar push (timed-delivery, scheduled to fire at user-relevant times) and rich-creative push (image + button + branded creative variants). The format premium varies by vertical — calendar push on iGaming offers timed to weekend evenings runs 18–34% above standard-push CR in RichAds' published case studies (their data, not mine). The trade-off is creative-production overhead. If you have the design budget and the offer benefits from timing (iGaming, sports betting, sweepstakes), RichAds' calendar push is a real edge.

Day-7 CR vs day-0 CTR — which network surfaces it better?

adsy.tech surfaces day-7 cohort CR in the panel by default; RichAds defaults to day-0 CTR + day-3 CR and requires a postback configuration for day-7. Both support 14-day server-side postback if you wire it up. The methodology problem is that most push 'wins' get published based on day-0 CTR or day-3 CR. In my Mobidea dataset (n>120M, 2019–2024) the CTR-to-day-7-CR Pearson correlation is r=0.18 — almost not at all. The creative that wins on CTR loses on day-7 CR roughly 41% of the time. Whichever network you pick, default the attribution to 14-day server-side and ignore the day-0 dashboard.

Disclosed weakness — where does adsy.tech lose to RichAds?

Push-format depth. RichAds invested in push as their primary product since 2018; adsy.tech runs push as one of 9 formats. If your campaign is push-only, push-first, and you need calendar push, rich-creative push, the deepest published push-format benchmarks in the industry, and the AM team that's seen the most push campaigns, RichAds is the call. The honest take: I commission on adsy.tech signups and disclose that. For push-format-pure buyers in the $1,500–$10K monthly spend range, RichAds is genuinely the better fit.

Related reading

• → adsy.tech vs PropellerAds on the push format — Tier-1 volume vs rate-card floor
• → Push ads vs popunder — which converts better, by vertical and audience-fatigue economics
• → Best push networks for nutra offers — eight networks ranked on day-7 CR and frequency-cap economics