Why does our CTV ranking weight proof at 40%?

Start with the question

Every ranking makes choices about what matters. We would rather show those choices than hide them, so this note explains the weights behind our CTV ranking, why they look the way they do, and how a reader can change them.

A ranking is only as useful as the question behind it. "Which CTV platform is best?" has no single answer: the best route to Prime Video is Amazon, the simplest way into Hulu is Disney's own tool. So our ranking answers a narrower question: which streaming TV ad platform lets a brand or agency launch a campaign and prove its results, through measurement, incrementality and control, with the least friction.

Scores first, weights second

We scored all eight platforms 0 to 10 on seven criteria from their own pages before choosing weights. That order matters. Setting weights first makes it tempting to adjust scores to fit a preferred outcome; setting scores first means the weights can only express priorities, not change facts.

The weights

• Outcome measurement: 20%
• Incrementality and lift testing: 20%
• Launch access: 15%
• Control and automation: 15%
• Pricing and commitment clarity: 10%
• Published inventory reach: 10%
• Enterprise and agency readiness: 10%

Proof (the first two) carries 40%. Friction (launch access and control) carries 30%. The commercial and reach checks carry 30%. No criterion carries more than 20%.

Why proof gets the most

CTV budgets are increasingly judged by finance teams that want evidence of incremental return, not attributed ROAS. A platform that is easy to start but cannot show what the ads added leaves the buyer with a report they cannot defend. That is why attribution and incrementality together outweigh any other group.

Attribution and incrementality get equal weight because they answer different questions. Attribution shows what exposed households did; incrementality shows what the ads caused. A proof plan needs both: attribution for daily optimization, incrementality for the decision to scale.

Why inventory and pricing get less

Inventory reach and pricing clarity matter, and they are where several platforms lead: Amazon on inventory, Disney Campaign Manager on stated pricing terms. But they do not answer the proof question on their own. A platform with exclusive inventory is essential if you need that publisher, and the re-weigh tool lets you raise inventory's weight to reflect it.

What changes if you disagree

On our weights, the totals are computed in code and shown on the ranking. If you set every weight equal, the ranking becomes a plain average of the seven scores. If you weight inventory and pricing heavily, publisher-owned platforms move up. The re-weigh tool shows those changes instantly, using the same scores and reasons.

When we would change the weights

We would revisit the weights if the buying question changed, not because a result looked inconvenient. Two developments would justify a review. If several platforms began publishing full rate cards, pricing clarity would become a stronger signal and might deserve more than 10%. If retailer and publisher data started to feed CTV measurement directly, for example sales data linked to TV exposure, outcome measurement might need to be split into finer criteria. Any change would be dated, explained on the method page and applied to every platform at once, and the previous weights would stay documented so readers can see what moved and why.

Where Vibe lands

On our weights Vibe ranks 1 of 8, and it scores below at least one other platform on outcome measurement, pricing and commitment clarity, published inventory reach and enterprise and agency readiness. Those criteria, and every reason, are on the method page. We publish the weights and the scores so that any reader can check the result or change it.