All comparisons
Comparison

ValidVisit vs TrafficGuard

Ad-fraud prevention across PPC, mobile and affiliate channels. Here’s an honest, side-by-side look at how ValidVisit compares on detection depth, transparency, extra-hop requirements and ad-network coverage.

How ValidVisit works →
Choose ValidVisit if

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.

Choose TrafficGuard if

Full-funnel fraud prevention with strong mobile/app-install coverage.

Many teams run both: a blocker for automated exclusion, ValidVisit for independent scored evidence across every paid source.

01 / COMPARE

Where a flag becomes a score.

Where most tools stop at a per-click verdict, ValidVisit shows the transparent 0–100 score behind every one — per source, auditable, worst first.

Native / push / pop network coverage
ValidVisit
74 networks incl. native/push/pop
TrafficGuard
PPC, mobile & affiliate
Positioning focus
ValidVisit
Transparent measurement & attribution
TrafficGuard
Full-funnel fraud prevention
Detects without device fingerprinting or cookies
ValidVisit
Yes — no fingerprint, no cookies
TrafficGuard
Typically fingerprint-based
Automated IP exclusion in Google / Meta
ValidVisit
Roadmap
TrafficGuard
Yes — core feature

TrafficGuard capabilities are based on public positioning and may change — verify on their site. We don’t publish unverifiable accuracy claims about other tools.

validvisit · console
0–49 invalid50–79 suspect80–100 valid
deal-alerts.example18
zone 447158
premium-news.example86

The same 0–100 score on every source, worst first — down to the placement you buy.

02 / WEDGE

What you get that a blocker doesn’t.

Genuine humans pass, bots stand out — and every verdict shows its work.

0–100

An auditable quality score on every visit, built from 100+ data points.

74 networks

Attribution across the native, push and pop channels where invalid traffic concentrates.

No funnel hop

One lightweight script — nothing added to your click path.

03 / TRADE-OFFS

Where TrafficGuard is stronger.

Full-funnel fraud prevention with strong mobile/app-install coverage.

If automated IP exclusion pushed straight into the ad platform is your top priority today, a dedicated blocker like TrafficGuardleads there. ValidVisit detects, scores and attributes — automated platform exclusion is on our roadmap, and we won’t pretend it’s shipped.

04 / IN DEPTH

ValidVisit vs TrafficGuard, in depth.

TrafficGuard is a full-funnel ad-fraud prevention platform with unusually broad reach: it works across PPC search and programmatic display, and — where it is strongest — mobile app-install and affiliate channels, validating traffic from the impression through to the post-install event. It is a prevention-first product, built to filter invalid traffic in real time and keep it out of your campaigns before it costs you. For advertisers running large app-install or affiliate budgets, that end-to-end coverage and the ability to reject fraudulent installs at the source is a genuine strength — and it is a capability ValidVisit does not offer. The one real difference is what happens at the moment of judgement. TrafficGuard is built to block — to stop invalid traffic in the path. ValidVisit is built to measure: every visit is weighed against 100+ independent data points and collapsed into a single 0–100 quality score, pinned to the exact source, publisher and placement that sent it, so you hold an independent, auditable record you act on yourself.

Blocking vs measurement

TrafficGuard’s core is prevention. It sits in the traffic path and filters invalid activity in real time — rejecting fraudulent clicks, impressions and installs before they land in your reporting or your billed spend. That is a real, valuable capability, and it is one ValidVisit does not ship: we do not block, auto-exclude, or reject anything in the path.

ValidVisit’s core is measurement. Every visit that reaches your page is scored 0–100 and attributed to the source behind it — report-only, after arrival. Nothing is decided for you; you get an independent record of what each source actually sent, and you act on it in the network’s own dashboard.

The two are not in tension. A prevention layer keeps the worst traffic out; an independent measurement layer tells you, in your own numbers, which sources are still underperforming and by how much — evidence you own rather than a filter you trust.

Privacy and data

ValidVisit is fingerprint-free by design. We score traffic without building a persistent identity profile of the visitor — no device fingerprinting, no cross-site tracking. The 0–100 score is assembled from how a visit arrives and behaves, then discarded down to the verdict. That is a deliberate product line, not a limitation we are hiding: privacy-first measurement is the point.

Prevention platforms like TrafficGuard generally take the opposite — and equally legitimate — stance. Thorough validation across the whole funnel tends to lean on richer device- and identity-level data, because that is what lets a real-time filter make a confident block decision. Neither approach is wrong; they serve different priorities.

If data minimisation is a hard requirement for your compliance posture or your users, ValidVisit’s privacy-first stance is a distinguishing reason to choose it. If maximum-coverage blocking is the priority, a data-rich prevention layer is the right tool for that job.

Attribution and evidence

Every ValidVisit verdict shows its work. Each visit carries its own 0–100 score, and each score is attributed to the specific sub-source that produced it — the publisher, zone, placement or sub-ID inside a campaign, not just the campaign name. Because the evidence is per-visit and auditable, you can defend an exclusion decision with the record rather than a black-box flag, and you can tell a merely disengaged source apart from one with a structural invalid-traffic problem.

This is where ValidVisit reaches into channels many tools cover only lightly: the native, push and pop networks where invalid traffic tends to concentrate, attributed across a broad set of ad-network tracking tokens. TrafficGuard’s strength runs deepest in mobile app-install and affiliate validation; ValidVisit’s runs deepest in transparent, per-source scored attribution across paid web sources. Running both is coherent — TrafficGuard blocks what it can in the path, ValidVisit hands you the independent scored evidence for everything that still gets through.

FAQ

Common questions.

Is ValidVisit a TrafficGuard alternative?+
It can be, depending on what you need. If you want transparent, privacy-first measurement — every visit scored 0–100 and pinned to the source that sent it, with the breakdown laid out so you can audit and defend it, especially across native, push and pop channels — ValidVisit is a strong alternative or complement. If your priority is real-time prevention that rejects fraudulent traffic and installs in the path, that is TrafficGuard’s core capability and one ValidVisit does not offer today. Many teams treat them as complementary rather than either/or.
TrafficGuard vs ValidVisit — what is the key difference?+
Approach at the moment of judgement. TrafficGuard is prevention-first: it sits in the path and blocks or filters invalid traffic in real time across the full funnel, including mobile installs. ValidVisit is measurement-first: it scores every visit 0–100 after arrival, attributes each score to the exact sub-source, and hands you an independent, report-only record you act on yourself in the network’s dashboard. One keeps traffic out; the other tells you, transparently and per-source, what your traffic actually is. Neither is a substitute for the other’s core strength.
Can I use both TrafficGuard and ValidVisit?+
Yes, and they fit together cleanly. TrafficGuard blocks and filters invalid traffic in the path; ValidVisit measures what reaches your page and gives you an independent 0–100 score per visit, attributed by source. Because that scored evidence does not depend on the same system that did the blocking, it works as an independent check on your paid sources and a transparent audit trail across native, push and pop. They solve different halves of the problem — prevention and independent measurement — so running both is coherent, not redundant.
Where is TrafficGuard stronger?+
In real-time prevention and full-funnel coverage, particularly mobile app-install and affiliate fraud. TrafficGuard is built to validate traffic from impression through to the post-install event and to reject invalid activity before it costs you — a mature capability that ValidVisit does not ship. If your budget is concentrated in app installs or affiliate channels and you need traffic actively blocked rather than measured, TrafficGuard leads there. ValidVisit’s strength is elsewhere: privacy-first, transparent, per-source scored evidence you act on yourself.
deal-alerts.example18
zone 447158
premium-news.example86

Judge the verdicts on your own traffic.

One script, every visit scored 0–100 and attributed to the source that sent it — see what your paid traffic really is.

Just your email · no card · unsubscribe anytime · privacy policy

Free trial at launch · just your email

One script · no cookies · no fingerprinting · raw IP never stored