Compare ezoic and pixguard on pricing, features, platforms, and ratings — both AI tools, Free to join with no upfront cost; Ezoic operates on a revenue-share…
At a Glance
ezoic
pixguard
Primary category
AI
AI
Rating
Not documented
Not documented
Pricing model
Free to join with no upfront cost; Ezoic operates on a revenue-share basis, earning a commission only when a publisher's ad revenue increases.
Freemium with paid subscriptions: ~30 free scans (no card required), Pro $29/mo (~250 scans), Business $79/mo (~1,000 scans), plus one-time scan packs from $20-$300.
Starting price
Not documented
Not documented
Free plan
Yes
Yes
Free trial
Not documented
Not documented
Platforms
Not documented
Browser Extension
Team collaboration
Not documented
Not documented
AI features
Yes
Yes
Public API
Not documented
Yes
Pricing Compared
Starting price reflects the lowest paid tier, not the full cost for every team size or usage level.
ezoic
No individual plan breakdown documented yet.
pixguard
No individual plan breakdown documented yet.
Pros & Cons
ezoic
Pros
No upfront cost to join — Ezoic uses a revenue-share model, so it only earns when a publisher's ad revenue grows
AI-driven testing continuously adjusts ad layout, density, and format per visitor rather than relying on one static placement
Header-bidding auction draws demand from multiple partners (Google AdX, Amazon, Magnite, and others), increasing competition for a publisher's ad inventory
Integrates with an existing ad stack via a lightweight JS snippet, framework SDKs (React, Vue, Angular), or a WordPress plugin, so publishers don't need to rebuild their site
Long operating history (founded 2010) and Google Premier Partner status suggest platform stability compared with newer, unproven ad networks
Cons
Revenue-share pricing means Ezoic keeps a cut of ad earnings rather than charging a flat fee, so costs scale with revenue instead of being fixed and predictable
No public self-serve pricing page listing exact revenue-share percentages — publishers must sign up and use the dashboard to see actual terms
Ad-optimized layouts are, by design, more ad-dense than a minimal site, which can be a trade-off against page cleanliness for some publishers
Best suited to sites that already have meaningful traffic to monetize; the value proposition is weaker for pre-launch products or very low-traffic sites
pixguard
Pros
Free tier gives about 30 scans with no credit card required, so users can evaluate accuracy before paying
Combines multiple detection signals (watermark, hidden metadata, perceptual hash matching, AI-generation detection) rather than relying on a single method
Vendor reports a 94% infringement catch rate with a 3% false-positive rate, and 98% accuracy on visible watermark detection
Ships as a Chrome extension and WordPress plugin in addition to the web app and API, fitting into an existing workflow
Recurring site monitoring (weekly on Pro, daily on Business) catches newly added risky images automatically
Scanned images are processed in memory and not stored on PixGuard's servers, per its stated privacy approach
Cons
Accuracy and false-positive figures (94% catch rate, 3% false positives) are self-reported by the vendor, not independently verified
Built and run by a solo founder, with no visible enterprise support tier, SLA, or team page
Overage scans are billed per-image ($0.08-$0.25 depending on plan/pack), which can get expensive for high-volume publishers
Full-site scans are capped by plan (roughly 500 images on Pro, 2,000 on Business per the FAQ), which may not cover very large sites in a single scan
No direct integrations beyond the Chrome extension, WordPress plugin, and API are advertised (no native Shopify, Wix, or other CMS plugins found)