AdMob or GAM for Mobile Apps? The Decision Framework (2026)

AdMob is the right default for mobile apps under roughly $5,000-$10,000/month in ad revenue or under 5 million monthly impressions. Above that threshold, GAM earns its complexity when you have or want direct deals, need Open Bidding to run multiple SSPs in server-side competition, or your demand mix requires more than AdMob's mediation layer can control. The migration itself costs 2-6 weeks of yield management overhead and typically produces no immediate revenue lift: GAM's value is in the demand ceiling it raises over time, not a day-one CPM improvement.

What AdMob and GAM actually are

The SERP answer to "AdMob vs GAM" is the same everywhere: AdMob is for small apps, GAM is for big publishers. That framing is partial. It does not tell an operator with 500,000 monthly active users and $8,000/month in AdMob revenue whether they should migrate or what they actually get if they do. This article is the decision framework that vendor comparison content avoids writing. For the full GAM implementation path once you have decided to move, see the Google Ad Manager for Mobile Apps: Complete Operator Guide.

The structural difference is what matters here, not the feature list.

AdMob is a mobile ad network that also functions as a lightweight ad server and mediation platform. Google controls the demand. When you use AdMob, Google is filling most of your inventory, either directly through Google Ads demand or through AdMob's mediation, which routes third-party networks (Meta, AppLovin, Mintegral, and others) in a hierarchy you configure. You set the mediation groups and floors. Google handles most of the yield optimization automatically.

GAM is an ad server. It does not come with demand. It is infrastructure for publishers who want to control how demand is assembled, priced, and served. To get demand through GAM on a mobile app you need at least one of: Google AdX (Google's programmatic exchange, requires separate approval), Open Bidding (GAM's server-side auction for third-party SSPs and bidding networks, available in both GAM and GAM 360), or direct deals (Programmatic Guaranteed, Preferred Deals, Sponsorship line items that you manage and price yourself). GAM gives you control over the demand architecture. It does not give you demand by default.

One thing that is commonly misunderstood and worth naming early: both AdMob and GAM use the same Google Mobile Ads (GMA) SDK. SDK migration is not a blocker when moving from AdMob to GAM. You are changing account-side configuration, not rebuilding your ad integration from the SDK up.

The right product is the one whose question matches your actual operation. AdMob asks: how do you want to configure your mediation stack? GAM asks: how do you want to manage your demand relationships? If you do not have demand relationships to manage, that second question does not produce a better answer.

Where the demand comes from

Most vendor comparisons skip this or handle it with a bullet list of network logos. The demand difference between AdMob and GAM is structural, and getting it wrong is how publishers migrate to GAM and see no revenue change.

AdMob's demand structure: Google Ads demand makes up the majority of fill for most AdMob publishers. On top of that sits a mediation layer that can include AppLovin, Meta, Mintegral, InMobi, and others, either in waterfall order or bidding groups. Google controls the demand access. The publisher configures mediation; the demand comes through Google's network relationships. For the mediation architecture question, see Mediation Waterfall vs In-App Bidding.

GAM's demand structure starts with nothing. The layers that bring demand are:

Google AdX requires explicit Google approval. Most app publishers are not approved directly. The path to AdX demand typically runs through a GAM 360 reseller, a Certified Channel Partner, or an MCM (Multiple Customer Management) arrangement where a certified partner manages GAM configuration on your behalf while you retain data ownership.

Open Bidding lets third-party SSPs and bidding networks compete in a real-time server-side auction alongside AdX. Available in both GAM free and GAM 360, but the pool of Open Bidding partners in GAM 360 is broader. In a mobile context, Open Bidding competes with AdMob's mediation for the same functional outcome (multiple demand sources in competition), but the architecture runs server-side rather than through SDK mediation.

Direct deals require buyer relationships. Programmatic Guaranteed, Preferred Deals, Sponsorship line items. A publisher without direct advertisers or agency relationships gets no incremental demand from this capability.

The implication: if you migrate from AdMob to GAM without AdX approval and without direct deal relationships, you do not automatically get more demand. You get a more complex system with potentially the same demand pool you had before.

When the demand argument for GAM is real: you have or can get AdX access, you have enough volume to attract direct deals, or you are running Prebid Mobile and want a GAM ad server as the decision layer for your bidding stack. For the full demand source architecture breakdown, see GAM Demand Options for Mobile Apps.

The decision framework

This is the section that vendor comparisons avoid writing. No "it depends." Four variables, each with a specific resolution.

Variable 1: Monthly revenue and impression volume

Under $3,000/month or under 1 million monthly impressions: AdMob. The overhead of GAM (account setup, ad unit naming, line item management, yield group configuration) does not pay for itself at this scale. AdMob's automation and simpler mediation configuration are the right choice here.

$3,000-$10,000/month or 1-10 million monthly impressions: depends on demand ambitions, but with a specific resolution. If you are not pursuing direct deals and are satisfied with Google demand plus mediation, AdMob with well-configured bidding groups serves you well at this scale. If you are beginning to receive direct deal inquiries or want Open Bidding with a wider SSP pool, GAM is worth the investigation. The investigation, not the migration.

Above $10,000/month or above 10 million monthly impressions: GAM becomes materially relevant. At this scale, the incremental yield from direct deal prioritization, Open Bidding competition, and granular floor pricing in GAM can cover the migration and operating overhead. This is also the threshold range where AdX approval becomes possible for many publishers, subject to content and traffic quality.

Note on GAM free vs GAM 360: GAM free allows up to 90 million non-video monthly impressions for US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand publishers, and up to 200 million in certain other markets. Below those limits, GAM is free. The impression limit is rarely the trigger for moving to 360. The demand features are: wider Open Bidding partner pool, Private Auction access, AdX priority management.

Variable 2: Demand sources you want

If Google demand plus AppLovin, Meta, and Mintegral in bidding covers your demand needs, AdMob handles this well. You do not need GAM for this demand mix. Before comparing AdMob to GAM, audit whether your current AdMob setup is actually optimized. The AdMob Approval Checker is a useful first pass.

If you have direct deal relationships with brand advertisers or agencies: GAM's direct deal infrastructure is designed for this. AdMob has no equivalent mechanism for managing direct sold inventory with custom pricing and buyer-level controls.

If you want to run multiple SSPs in server-side competition beyond what AdMob's bidding covers: GAM's Open Bidding partner list is broader, particularly at the 360 tier. Publishers running Prebid Mobile and wanting GAM as the unified auction decision layer need GAM, not AdMob.

If AdX access is the goal: AdX requires GAM and either direct Google approval or a 360 reseller/MCM relationship. AdMob does not provide AdX access. That path is only open through GAM.

Variable 3: Operational capacity

One person, no dedicated ad ops: AdMob. GAM requires ongoing line item maintenance, yield group configuration, and reporting interpretation that a solo operation will find difficult to sustain alongside product development. A decayed GAM setup performs worse than a well-maintained AdMob stack.

Dedicated monetization resource or small ad ops team: GAM is viable. The overhead is real but manageable. The initial configuration takes 3-8 weeks done properly (ad unit naming, yield groups, Open Bidding configuration, direct deal line item templates). Ongoing maintenance is lighter once setup is complete.

Managed by a partner (GAM 360 reseller, MCM partner, or yield management firm): GAM becomes viable even for publishers without in-house ad ops. The partner handles configuration overhead; the publisher gains the demand access.

Variable 4: App type and direct deal potential

Games (especially casual and hypercasual): AdMob typically serves games well. Brand advertisers are cautious about game inventory. The demand story is primarily programmatic, and AdMob's mediation plus bidding covers it.

Utility, productivity, news, or content apps: higher direct deal potential. Brand advertisers run in these environments. If your monthly active user count and demographics are attractive to agencies, GAM's direct deal capability becomes a real revenue lever.

Kids apps under COPPA: neither platform opens up demand in COPPA environments, but AdMob's compliance tooling and simpler line item structure are better suited for publishers who need clean compliance without ad ops overhead.

Summary by profile:

Under $3K/month, game, solo dev: Recommendation: AdMob with bidding groups

$3K-$10K/month, no direct deals, content app: Recommendation: AdMob until direct deal pipeline exists

$10K+/month, direct deal relationships forming: Recommendation: Investigate GAM; run parallel if 360 partner available

Any scale, Prebid Mobile on roadmap: Recommendation: GAM required as the ad server

Any scale, AdX is the goal: Recommendation: GAM plus 360 partner or MCM

$10K+/month, brand-safe content, agency relationships: Recommendation: GAM with Preferred Deals and Open Bidding

The GAM 360 cost vs benefit calculation

The most common misconception about GAM: publishers assume they will need GAM 360 to get anything meaningful out of it. That is sometimes true but not always, and the distinction matters.

GAM free gives you: ad serving, direct deal line items, basic Open Bidding (limited partner pool), and AdX demand if you are directly approved. For publishers who have AdX approval or primarily need ad serving infrastructure for direct deals, GAM free is sufficient.

GAM 360 adds: an expanded Open Bidding partner pool, Private Auction access, Preferred Deals with more buyer controls, advanced reporting and Data Transfer file access, and in some partner configurations AdX demand even without direct approval. The functional additions that actually move revenue are the expanded SSP/bidding partner pool and the Data Transfer data access.

The cost of GAM 360: Google does not publish standard pricing publicly. GAM 360 is sold through Google's sales team and through authorized resellers. Pricing is impression-based and negotiated. The commonly observed range for smaller publishers accessing 360 through a reseller is a revenue share arrangement, typically 10-20% of incremental revenue, or a flat monthly fee starting around $1,000-$2,000/month for access. Direct Google 360 contracts are enterprise-tier and outside the realistic range for publishers under $50,000/month.

When 360 earns its cost: the incremental revenue from a larger Open Bidding partner pool and Private Auction access needs to cover the 360 cost. At $10,000/month in ad revenue, a 10-15% incremental yield improvement from expanded Open Bidding earns $1,000-$1,500/month, which can cover reseller costs. Below that threshold, the math is harder. Above $20,000-$30,000/month, the premium demand access from 360 typically pays for itself.

The alternative path: MCM (Multiple Customer Management) arrangements with a GAM-certified partner can provide AdX access without a 360 subscription. The partner holds the 360 account; your inventory runs through their MCM setup. You gain AdX demand and share a portion of revenue. For publishers in the $5,000-$20,000/month range, this is often the right entry point. See GAM Demand Options for Mobile Apps for the full demand source and MCM architecture breakdown.

The Open Bidding question

Open Bidding is GAM's server-side auction mechanism. Understanding it is central to the AdMob vs GAM decision for any publisher at meaningful scale.

What Open Bidding does in a mobile context: instead of calling network SDKs sequentially or in parallel through a mediation platform, Open Bidding routes the ad request to participating demand partners server-side. Partners return bids; GAM runs the auction and picks the winner. No mediation SDK needed for participating demand sources.

How it compares to AdMob's mediation: AdMob's mediation and bidding groups work through the GMA SDK. AdMob's Open Bidding is available and allows third-party bidding partners alongside Google demand. GAM's Open Bidding operates at the ad server level and includes a broader range of SSPs (PubMatic, Magnite, Index Exchange, and others) that are not part of AdMob's mediation network list.

When Open Bidding in GAM adds incremental value over AdMob: when you have SSP relationships that are not in AdMob's mediation partner pool, when you want programmatic demand from web-focused SSPs applied to your app inventory, or when you are running a publisher stack that spans web and app and want a unified server-side demand layer.

When Open Bidding in GAM does not add value over AdMob: when your demand mix is already covered by AdMob's bidding partners, when your impression volume is too low for SSP bidders to have meaningful signal on your inventory, or when you have no SSP relationships outside the AdMob mediation network list.

The honest reality for most mobile apps under 5 million monthly impressions: Open Bidding in GAM does not produce materially different outcomes from AdMob's bidding groups, because the same core demand pool (AppLovin, Meta, Google) is accessible through both paths. The Open Bidding value proposition grows as your impression volume increases and as you add SSP relationships that do not participate in AdMob's mediation. For the mediation comparison between AdMob and its alternatives, see AdMob Mediation vs AppLovin MAX.

If you are trying to figure out whether the SSPs in GAM's Open Bidding pool are actually going to bid on your inventory at your scale, that is exactly the kind of demand audit that prevents a GAM migration for the wrong reasons. Book a free 30-minute call.

Operational overhead reality

This is what vendor comparison content consistently omits. GAM's power is real. So is the operational cost.

AdMob's operational model: configure mediation groups (add networks, set waterfall tiers or bidding groups, segment by country or ad format), review eCPMs and fill rates in the mediation report, update floors when eCPMs shift. Google handles demand selection, floor optimization in part, and reporting aggregation. The system does a lot of the maintenance work for you.

GAM's operational model adds: ad unit naming and hierarchy (ad units created without a naming convention become unmanageable as the app scales), line item management (direct deals require line items with specific targeting, creatives, and delivery settings), yield group priorities, reporting segmentation (you build your own dimensions rather than reading a provided report), and compliance configuration (COPPA/TFUA flags at initialization, supply chain variables, app-ads.txt synchronization).

The line item volume in a live GAM mobile stack: a publisher running Open Bidding, a few direct deals, house ads, and remnant demand can easily have 50-200 active line items. Managing those line items (updating creative sizes, monitoring delivery pacing, archiving expired orders) is ongoing maintenance that does not exist in AdMob.

The MCM overlay: if you access GAM through a Multiple Customer Management arrangement with a partner, you add another operational layer. The MCM partner holds permissions to manage your inventory on your behalf. You need to understand what permissions they hold, how the revenue share is calculated, and what reporting access you retain.

The reporting gap: AdMob's dashboard aggregates key metrics cleanly. GAM's reporting is more powerful but requires more configuration. First-time GAM users often find the data volume overwhelming before they understand which reports to pull.

The realistic timeline for a GAM setup done correctly (ad unit hierarchy, yield groups, Open Bidding configuration, direct deal line item templates, compliance flags, app-ads.txt): 3-8 weeks. Publishers who rush through setup and compare day-one GAM results to AdMob results are comparing a half-configured system against an established one. Before starting a GAM migration, confirm your GMA SDK version is current using the Mediation SDK Checker. For the full implementation path, see the Google Ad Manager for Mobile Apps: Complete Operator Guide.

The case for staying on AdMob

Every vendor comparison article on the SERP concludes that publishers should migrate to GAM. None of them are vendor-neutral. This section is.

AdMob is the right answer for:

Apps under roughly $5,000-$10,000/month in ad revenue where GAM's incremental demand access does not cover its operational overhead. The migration costs real time and real configuration work, and that cost needs to produce something.

Solo developers or small teams without dedicated ad ops capacity. A GAM setup that is not actively maintained produces worse results than a well-maintained AdMob mediation stack. This is not theoretical. It is the most common outcome when a solo operator migrates to GAM without the capacity to sustain it.

Games without direct deal potential. If your inventory is not attractive to brand advertisers (most casual and hypercasual games), the entire direct deal capability of GAM is unused overhead.

Apps with a dominant single-demand-network relationship. If 60-70% of your revenue comes from Google demand through AdMob and your mediation fills the rest, adding GAM's complexity to that structure does not automatically improve it.

Publishers who are not pursuing AdX and do not have SSP relationships outside the AdMob mediation pool. Without those demand additions, the demand story for GAM vs AdMob is nearly identical. You are adding operational complexity without adding demand.

The well-maintained AdMob stack: AdMob with properly configured bidding groups (Meta, AppLovin, Mintegral, plus Google demand), segmented by country and ad format, with floors set and reviewed quarterly, competes well against a GAM setup without direct deals or a meaningful Open Bidding partner pool. Before you compare your current AdMob setup to a hypothetical GAM setup, audit whether your AdMob configuration is actually optimized. The AdMob Approval Checker is a starting point. For the mediation platform comparison, see AdMob Mediation vs AppLovin MAX.

The automation benefit: AdMob's automated eCPM floors and yield optimization are real advantages for operators without ad ops resources. Google's ML-driven floor optimization in AdMob has improved materially since 2022. Publishers who review the output monthly achieve yields that would require significant active management in GAM.

The case for moving to GAM

The revenue-leaving argument is also real. Write it with the same specificity.

GAM is the right answer for:

Publishers with direct deal relationships or a direct sales motion. No amount of mediation optimization captures the yield of a direct Preferred Deal at a premium CPM with a brand-safe advertiser. If you have agency relationships and brand advertisers who want your inventory, GAM is the infrastructure that lets you price and deliver that demand. AdMob cannot do this.

Publishers running Prebid Mobile and wanting a server-side header bidding architecture. Prebid Mobile requires an ad server as the decision layer; GAM is the standard choice. AdMob does not function as a Prebid ad server.

Publishers who want AdX access and meet the volume and quality thresholds for direct approval or an MCM arrangement. AdX's demand pool (Real-Time Bidding access to Google's full advertiser base) is larger and more competitive than AdMob's demand. The CPM difference in tier-1 geos for brand-safe content is real.

Publishers with multi-platform inventory across web and app. If you are monetizing both a website and a mobile app, GAM is the unified infrastructure. Running AdMob for the app and a separate web stack creates fragmented reporting and yield management. GAM handles both from one account.

Publishers who need granular floor control. AdMob's floor optimization is automated; you can set manual floors but the granularity is limited compared to GAM's line item pricing controls. Publishers with large, heterogeneous audiences across many geos often find GAM's per-country, per-format floor management materially better for yield.

The ceiling argument: AdMob has a revenue ceiling for ambitious publishers. Not because Google demand stops growing with you, but because the demand mix is constrained to what Google and AdMob's mediation partners provide. GAM's ceiling is higher because the direct deal and Open Bidding layers can add demand that AdMob does not access.

Hybrid setups

Hybrid configurations exist in production. They are not common, but they are not theoretical either.

AdMob as a demand source within GAM: Publishers using GAM as their primary ad server can add AdMob as a mediation yield group within GAM's yield management. GAM handles the ad serving decision; when it routes through the mediation chain, AdMob demand fills. This is not a common configuration because the AdMob demand accessible this way is the same demand accessible through running AdMob directly.

AdMob mediation pointing to GAM: some publishers run AdMob's mediation with a GAM integration layer so that certain inventory (direct deals) can be managed through GAM while the broader mediation waterfall runs in AdMob. Architecturally complicated. Not recommended for publishers without experienced ad ops support.

AdMob for some apps, GAM for others: publishers with a portfolio of apps at different scales sometimes run AdMob for smaller or newer apps and GAM for their flagship titles. This is operationally sensible. The overhead of GAM is justified for the flagship where direct deals and Open Bidding are active, but not for a smaller app generating $500/month.

The general guidance: hybrid setups add operational complexity without proportionate benefit in most cases. The better path for most publishers is to choose the right platform for the app's current scale and monetization strategy, and migrate cleanly when the conditions for GAM are met rather than running parallel systems indefinitely.

Migration considerations

Publishers who migrate from AdMob to GAM expecting an immediate revenue improvement are frequently disappointed. The migration economics are real and should be named before the decision is made.

The revenue dip: a clean migration from AdMob to GAM does not produce a day-one improvement. The demand access improvements from Open Bidding and AdX take time to materialize as demand partners calibrate bid models on the new inventory. A typical migration timeline: weeks 1-3 are configuration and testing in a parallel state, weeks 4-6 are live but with potential yield instability as bidding models adjust, weeks 7-12 are stabilization. Most publishers see flat-to-negative revenue in the first 4-6 weeks and improvement only after the demand has calibrated.

The parallel run approach: do not cut over the entire stack at once. Run AdMob on one or two ad units while bringing GAM live on a different placement. Compare per-unit eCPM and fill rate after 2-3 weeks. This approach has a known limit: the demand that GAM adds will not be visible in a small test because SSP bid models need sufficient impression volume to calibrate. A small parallel test validates configuration; it does not validate the demand argument.

When not to migrate:

When you are not within 4-6 weeks of having GAM properly configured. A half-built GAM setup performs worse than a well-built AdMob setup.

When you have no path to AdX access (no direct approval, no 360 partner, no MCM arrangement). Without AdX, GAM's demand advantage over AdMob is significantly reduced.

When your app's monetization is already under pressure (declining DAU, eCPM drops, fill rate issues). Fix the underlying issue first. Migrating platforms when the stack is already stressed compounds the problem.

When you do not have the operational capacity to maintain a GAM setup properly. A decayed GAM setup (ad units with no naming convention, yield groups with stale configurations, bidding partners not updated to current SDK versions) will underperform AdMob's automated management. Confirm your SDK and adapter versions are current before starting any migration using the Mediation SDK Checker and the Mediation SDK & Adapter Compatibility Guide.

The right trigger for migration: a specific demand opportunity (a direct deal that requires GAM, an AdX approval, a Prebid Mobile integration) or a scale threshold ($10,000+/month, 10M+ impressions/month) where the demand ceiling of AdMob is demonstrably constraining revenue. "I've heard GAM is better" is not a migration trigger.

The migration decision is worth pressure-testing before you start. The right question is whether your specific app, at its current scale and demand mix, will actually be better served by GAM or whether a stronger AdMob configuration gets you further faster. That is what the free initial conversation covers. Book a free 30-minute call.

Frequently Asked Questions

At what monthly revenue does it make sense to switch from AdMob to GAM?

The practical threshold is around $10,000 per month in ad revenue or 10 million monthly impressions. Below that, GAM's operational overhead typically does not pay for itself unless you have a specific demand trigger: a direct deal that requires GAM, a path to AdX access through a GAM 360 reseller, or a Prebid Mobile integration. Publishers in the $3,000-$10,000 per month range should investigate GAM only if one of those demand triggers is present. The threshold is not a hard cutoff but the point where incremental yield from GAM's demand access (Open Bidding, AdX, direct deals) typically covers the setup and maintenance cost.

What does GAM actually offer that AdMob doesn't?

Three things AdMob does not provide: first, direct deal infrastructure (Preferred Deals, Programmatic Guaranteed, and Sponsorship line items that let you price and deliver inventory for specific buyers); second, access to Google AdX and the broader Open Bidding partner pool of SSPs that are not in AdMob's mediation network list; third, the ad server controls needed for publishers running Prebid Mobile or managing multi-platform inventory across web and app from a single account. What GAM does not add on its own is demand. GAM is infrastructure. The demand advantage only materializes if you have AdX access, active Open Bidding partners, or direct deals.

Do I need GAM 360 or is GAM free enough?

GAM free handles up to 90 million non-video monthly impressions for US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand publishers, and up to 200 million in certain other markets. Most mobile apps reaching GAM for the first time are within the free tier. The reason to upgrade to GAM 360 is not impression volume but demand access: GAM 360 opens a broader Open Bidding partner pool including more SSPs and Private Auction access, plus better Data Transfer reporting. The practical entry point for publishers who want 360 benefits without a direct Google enterprise contract is a GAM 360 reseller or MCM arrangement, which typically runs a revenue share of 10-20% of incremental yield.

Can I run AdMob and GAM together?

Yes, but it is not common and adds operational complexity. The most practical hybrid is running AdMob for some apps in a portfolio and GAM for others, depending on scale and monetization strategy. Running AdMob as a demand source within a GAM yield group is possible but does not add demand that is not already accessible through AdMob directly. Running a parallel setup during migration, keeping AdMob live on some placements while bringing GAM online on others, is the recommended migration approach but is transitional rather than a permanent configuration.

How long does it take to migrate from AdMob to GAM for a mobile app?

A proper migration covering ad unit hierarchy, yield groups, Open Bidding configuration, direct deal line item templates, compliance flags, and app-ads.txt takes 3-8 weeks. Publishers who rush through setup and compare day-one GAM results to AdMob results are comparing a half-configured system against an established one. The revenue comparison becomes meaningful only after demand partners have calibrated bid models on the new inventory, which typically takes 4-8 weeks from live cutover. Weeks 1-3 are typically configuration and parallel testing; weeks 4-6 are live with potential yield instability; weeks 7-12 are stabilization.

Will my revenue go up after switching from AdMob to GAM?

Not automatically. The revenue outcome depends entirely on what demand you add through GAM that you did not have through AdMob. If you add AdX access, active Open Bidding SSPs, and direct deals, and those demand sources calibrate properly, revenue typically improves over a 2-3 month period. If you migrate to GAM without AdX access and without SSP relationships outside the AdMob mediation network list, the demand pool is similar to AdMob and the revenue difference is marginal. The migration cost in operational overhead and calibration period is real in both cases. The revenue upside is conditional on the demand you actually add.

The question has a stack-specific answer

The AdMob vs GAM question does not have a universal answer. It has a stack-specific answer that depends on your revenue scale, your demand mix, and what you are actually willing to manage. Publishers who migrate because they have heard GAM is better for serious publishers often find they have added operational overhead without the demand additions that make GAM worth the cost. Publishers who stay on AdMob past the point where direct deals and Open Bidding would produce real yield improvement leave money on the table for a different reason.

The decision criteria are in this article. Apply them to your actual numbers.

If you want to run that through against your actual setup rather than against a vendor comparison table, that is what the free initial conversation is for. Book a free 30-minute call.