About popunder-ads.io
Last reviewed 29 July 2026
popunder-ads.io maintains one thing: a current comparison of the ad networks that sell popunder inventory. The comparison itself is the site. It gets revised when terms move, rather than published once and left to rot.
Why the site exists
Search “popunder ads” and most of what comes back was assembled from other list posts, with the same figures travelling from page to page for years without anyone opening the source. Three turn up constantly. A banner-blindness statistic from a 2013 study, quoted as though it describes the mobile web. A claimed conversion rate above 100%, which is not a conversion rate at all. And a click-through comparison traced to a 2017 blog post rather than to any measurement.
Those numbers are checked and dated on the comparison page. Where a figure could not be traced to a source carrying a date, it is not used at all. The methodology page sets out the source hierarchy, and it is short enough to argue with.
What gets compared, and what that means
Two kinds of number appear in this category and they deserve very different treatment. Deposit minimums and payout floors are contractual — they turn up on invoices, a publisher can verify them against their own account, and a network cannot quietly restate them. Impression counts and GEO counts are self-reported marketing figures that no third party audits.
The second group gets labelled as such every time it appears, and volume claims get one further test. A network reporting bid requests, impressions and clicks has implied a fill rate and a click-through rate whether it meant to or not, and those two derived numbers either land in a plausible range or they do not. The check is described step by step in how the comparison is built. It works on any network, not just the ones listed here.
Who writes it
Christoph Trappe is a content strategist, author and speaker who has built and run content and digital marketing programs across healthcare, SaaS and publishing. Figures carry named sources inline so anyone can re-check them, and no first-person campaign results appear anywhere on the site, because none have been run yet.
How the site is funded
One network on the comparison, AdsCompass, is linked. No commission is paid on those links and no network pays for its position, so the link is there to save a reader a search rather than to earn anything. The other ten have not supplied a link, and adding one costs them nothing.
Why AdsCompass sits at the top of the table, and why its documented weaknesses are printed next to its strengths, is explained on the advertising disclosure page. Page views are measured with Google Analytics; the privacy page names the cookies and explains how to switch them off.
Who is responsible
Editorial responsibility for everything published here sits with Christoph Trappe, who researches, writes and revises the comparison. He decides what goes in the table and what gets cut, and no network has sign-off over any of it.
Complaints, corrections and questions about the entity operating the domain go through the contact page and are answered in writing rather than ignored.
Where the limits are
Stating these plainly is more useful than pretending they are not there.
- No campaigns have been run through these networks yet, so every CPM figure on the site comes from published benchmarks or third-party testing rather than first-hand spend.
- Traffic volumes cannot be independently verified. No network in this category publishes MRC-audited numbers, and the site says so rather than repeating the claims as fact.
- Terms in this category change roughly twice a year. A figure correct in July 2026 may not be correct by winter, which is why every table carries the date it was checked.
Anything on the site that turns out to be wrong gets corrected rather than quietly edited. The contact page explains what to send and what happens next.