Nommos vs the existing stack
For most prospects the real competitor is the status quo: native ad managers, a free analytics tool, a free heatmap tier and a spreadsheet holding it together. Their price is zero, and the switching cost is emotional rather than financial.
What your current stack is genuinely good at
- It costs nothing, which is a real advantage and we are not going to pretend otherwise
- Native ad managers are the most complete and most current interface for their own network, always
- Free analytics tools are mature, well documented, and everyone already knows them
- There is no migration risk, no procurement and no new vendor
- Your team already knows how it all works
What it costs that does not appear on an invoice
Every one of these tools is single-channel by construction. None shares a customer record. All of them require a person to move information between them.
- Two to four hours a week assembling a report from seven sources
- Numbers that disagree between tools, and no way to settle it in the meeting
- Audiences that are stale the moment they are exported
- Nothing watching between Friday evening and Monday morning
- Every campaign rebuilt from scratch in each network's own vocabulary
The status quo is only free if nobody's time is worth anything. That is the actual comparison.
What changes
- The weekly report stops being a task — the dashboard already holds the numbers
- One definition per metric, with the breakdown visible behind it
- Audiences update themselves instead of being exported
- Agents act continuously, including outside working hours
- You keep your ad accounts — Nommos connects to them rather than replacing them
Your current stack compared with Nommos
| Capability | Nommos | Native tools + spreadsheet |
|---|---|---|
| Cost of licences | Quoted | Free |
| Complete access to each ad network's newest features | Deep subset | Always current |
| Shared customer record across channels | Included | Not included |
| One report across every channel | Included | Not included |
| Audiences that update themselves | Included | Not included |
| Acts outside working hours | Included | Not included |
| Funnel, heatmap and replay in one place | Included | Partial |
| Time spent joining tools together | None | Hours per week |
| Multi-brand isolation | Included | Not included |
| Migration risk | Real, one-time | None |
This table describes what is typical of the category, not the current capability of any named product. Vendors change what they support; verify anything that matters to your decision against their own documentation.
Who should stay where they are
- A brand on a single channel with low volume. The value comes from consolidation and there is nothing to consolidate
- Teams whose entire operation is one media buyer in one native ads manager, doing it well
- Anyone who genuinely cannot spare the setup time — connecting channels is quick, but tracking and funnel definition need real attention
- Businesses where marketing is not currently a constraint on growth
Bring your current stack to the demo
The comparison that matters is against what you actually run, not against a category.