Sophisticated invalid-traffic and bot detection with mitigation workflows. Here’s an honest, side-by-side look at how ValidVisit compares on detection depth, transparency, extra-hop requirements and ad-network coverage.
You want transparent, auditable measurement: every visit scored 0–100 across 100+ data points, attributed to the publisher, zone and placement that sent it — including the native, push and pop networks most tools barely cover.
Deep bot and telemetry detection with mitigation and invalid-audience workflows for paid channels.
Many teams run both: a blocker for automated exclusion, ValidVisit for independent scored evidence across every paid source.
Where most tools stop at a per-click verdict, ValidVisit shows the transparent 0–100 score behind every one — per source, auditable, worst first.
| Capability | ValidVisit | fraud0 |
|---|---|---|
| Native / push / pop network coverage | 74 networks incl. native/push/pop | Web & paid acquisition |
| Positioning focus | Transparent measurement & attribution | Sophisticated bot detection + mitigation |
| Detects without device fingerprinting or cookies | Yes — no fingerprint, no cookies | Typically fingerprint-based |
| Automated IP exclusion in Google / Meta | Roadmap | Yes — core feature |
fraud0 capabilities are based on public positioning and may change — verify on their site. We don’t publish unverifiable accuracy claims about other tools.
The same 0–100 score on every source, worst first — down to the placement you buy.
Genuine humans pass, bots stand out — and every verdict shows its work.
An auditable quality score on every visit, built from 100+ data points.
Attribution across the native, push and pop channels where invalid traffic concentrates.
One lightweight script — nothing added to your click path.
Deep bot and telemetry detection with mitigation and invalid-audience workflows for paid channels.
If automated IP exclusion pushed straight into the ad platform is your top priority today, a dedicated blocker like fraud0leads there. ValidVisit detects, scores and attributes — automated platform exclusion is on our roadmap, and we won’t pretend it’s shipped.
fraud0 is an invalid-traffic and bot-detection platform with a strong telemetry-led approach: it collects a deep signal set from the visitor session to identify sophisticated automation, and pairs that detection with mitigation and invalid-audience workflows for paid channels — feeding exclusion audiences back into the platforms so flagged traffic stops being targeted. That mitigation loop is a real capability and one ValidVisit does not offer; we never block, never auto-exclude, and never write to your ad account. The genuine difference is what the product is optimised to produce. fraud0 is oriented around stopping sophisticated bots and acting on them. ValidVisit is oriented around the attributed record: every visit resolves to a single 0–100 quality score built from 100+ independent data points, pinned to the campaign, source and sub-source that delivered it, and each verdict names the exact checks the visit failed. We are fingerprint-free by design, which is both a deliberate privacy stance and an honest limitation. Teams who want automation stopped and audiences cleaned will be better served by fraud0; teams who want an independent, auditable per-source scorecard they control are the ones we are built for.
fraud0’s workflows are built to close the loop: detect invalid traffic, then push mitigation and invalid-audience exclusions back into the ad platforms so the same traffic stops being paid for. If your priority is that the problem is handled without a manual step, that is the design to reach for, and ValidVisit does not compete with it — we deliberately stop short of acting.
Our output is a per-visit, per-source record you own. Each visit carries a 0–100 quality score, resolved into Valid, Suspect or Invalid, and attributed to the exact sub-source behind it. Crucially the reasoning travels with it: open any visit and you see which checks fired, in words, not just a verdict. That is the difference between a system that tells you traffic was handled and one that shows you why it was judged the way it was. You then apply exclusions manually in the network’s own dashboard — slower, but auditable, and reversible when a source had an isolated spike rather than a structural problem.
fraud0 leans on deep session telemetry to catch sophisticated automation, and depth of signal is genuinely where that approach earns its keep — the harder the bot, the more signal you need to expose it.
ValidVisit draws a line that costs us coverage. We are fingerprint-free: we score the behaviour and context of a visit rather than building a persistent profile of the person behind it. That means there is a tier of premium proxy and identity-obscured fraud that telemetry-heavy platforms may catch and we deliberately do not chase. We would rather name that limit than imply parity. What the constraint buys is a detection layer that can sit in front of privacy-conscious audiences and stricter data regimes without inheriting a fingerprinting liability — and a scoring model whose inputs you can explain to a compliance reviewer. Which side of that line matters more is a real decision, not a marketing one.
The two products leave you holding different artifacts. A mitigation platform’s output is the state of your exclusions — the traffic that stopped. ValidVisit’s output is evidence: a scored log, attributed by source and sub-source, over a date range you choose, with the failing checks attached to each visit.
That difference shows up when you need to convince someone. Taking a quality problem back to a traffic partner is a different conversation when you can point to the specific sub-source, the window, the score distribution and the named checks, rather than to the fact that a filter excluded them. Because we score after arrival rather than in the click path, nothing is hidden from that log — including the traffic that passed, which is what makes the invalid share meaningful rather than just a count. If your need is to stop bots, that is fraud0’s job. If your need is to demonstrate a source’s quality to a partner, a finance team, or yourself, that is what we produce.
One script, every visit scored 0–100 and attributed to the source that sent it — see what your paid traffic really is.
Free trial at launch · just your email
One script · no cookies · no fingerprinting · raw IP never stored