When it comes to advertising intelligence, tools like AdSpy promise unparalleled access to a treasure trove of ad data. For marketers, agencies, and brands alike, the ability to track trends and uncover viral ad campaigns is vital to staying competitive in the fast-moving digital marketing arena. But does AdSpy live up to its promise of comprehensive ad discovery? Can it reliably catch every viral ad, or does it leave pivotal content undetected?
We put this to the test with a 30-day experiment comparing manual tracking of Facebook ads against AdSpy’s database. Specifically, we focused on identifying viral Facebook ads with over 100k engagements across major markets, such as the US, UK, Australia, and Canada. Here’s what we uncovered.
Why Test AdSpy’s Reliability?
AdSpy markets itself as one of the most robust ad intelligence platforms available. Its features include filtering by niche, call-to-action button, ad placement, and engagement metrics. But as marketers rely heavily on these insights, missing key viral ads could result in lost opportunities or misinformed strategies.
Our experiment aimed to answer two essential questions:
- How quickly does AdSpy detect viral ads compared to manual tracking?
- Does AdSpy miss any viral ads entirely?
Setting Up the Experiment
For a fair comparison, we ran this experiment across a diverse range of niches (including beauty, tech, fitness, and food) and focused exclusively on Facebook ads. The methodology included:
- Manual Tracking: We manually monitored Facebook ads daily using a combination of Facebook’s Ads Library and direct browsing on the platform. We recorded any ads with 100k+ engagements (likes, comments, and shares combined) and logged the timing of their appearances.
- AdSpy Queries: Simultaneously, we used AdSpy’s tools daily to search for ads in the same niches and markets, applying engagement filters to capture ads that crossed the 100k threshold.
For both methods, engagements were tracked and tallied over 30 days to measure detection speed and missing content.
Key Findings from the 30-Day Test
1. Detection Speed – Manual Tracking vs. AdSpy
One of the most significant factors in ad intelligence is timing. When a viral ad starts to trend, brands and agencies need to act swiftly to capitalize on the momentum or adjust strategies. Here’s what we found:
- Manual Detection:
- Viral ads were often identifiable within 24–48 hours due to their prominent placement on the Facebook feed.
- Active monitoring allowed for real-time insights, especially during peak scrolling hours.
- AdSpy Detection:
- AdSpy typically indexed viral ads within 48–72 hours of them gaining traction. While this lag may be negligible for long-term campaigns, it presents a disadvantage when responding to fast-moving trends.
- However, once listed, AdSpy provided detailed insights such as ad copies, audience targeting, and creatives, which manual tracking couldn’t replicate.
2. Missing Ads – Does AdSpy Capture Everything?
Perhaps the most surprising discovery was that AdSpy missed a significant chunk of viral content. Out of 160 viral ads identified manually across four niches, AdSpy only captured 126 ads, leaving 34 completely unaccounted for (approximately 21% of the total sample).
Common Patterns in Missing Ads
- Regional Discrepancies:
Most missing ads came from non-English-speaking regions or markets with localized content (e.g., French ads in Canada). This suggests that AdSpy’s database may prioritize heavily globalized ads over region-specific ones.
- Niche-Specific Gaps:
Ads in smaller, less mainstream niches—like eco-friendly DIY products or niche fitness programs—were more likely to be missed. These niches may not receive consistent indexing.
- Micro-Campaigns with Explosive Engagement:
Viral ads in micro-campaigns, which explode in popularity rapidly but for a very short duration, were less consistently detected.
3. Ad Quality Insights – The Strength of AdSpy
Despite some misses, AdSpy excelled in providing ad metadata far beyond what manual tracking could obtain. For example:
- Audience Insights:
AdSpy’s reports on audience demographics offered a deeper understanding of who the ads were targeting, which is unavailable through Facebook’s public tools.
- Comprehensive Filters:
AdSpy allowed filtering based on call-to-action buttons, URLs, or even ad text keywords, giving marketers an unparalleled ability to break down trends.
4. Regional Challenges and Language Barriers
AdSpy appears stronger in covering English-speaking markets compared to non-English markets. For example, ads targeting consumers in the US or UK were consistently detected on AdSpy’s database, but those in Spain, Brazil, or markets with nuanced language contexts were less reliable.
This finding is important for global businesses wanting to benchmark international campaigns. While AdSpy provides robust English-language insights, manual tracking may be necessary for multilingual markets.
What Does This Mean for Marketers?
Our experiment unearthed a mixed verdict for AdSpy users. On the one hand, it remains an exceptional tool for detailed ad intelligence and trend forecasting, particularly in mainstream niches and English-dominated markets. Its filtering features and audience insights add a strategic depth that manual monitoring cannot easily replicate.
However, the limitations in detection speed and missing content suggest that relying solely on AdSpy could leave brands vulnerable to blind spots, especially in fast-evolving campaigns. Combining manual tracking with AdSpy may be the best approach for marketers laser-focused on catching every viral trend.
Practical Takeaways
For brands, agencies, and content creators, here’s how to approach ad intelligence effectively:
- Use AdSpy for Big Picture Insights:
Tap into AdSpy’s vast database to identify trends, analyze competitors, and gain granular insights that manual tracking can’t provide.
- Supplement with Manual Tracking:
For brands targeting niche audiences, non-English-speaking regions, or micro-campaigns, manual tracking is essential. Tools like Facebook Ads Library can ensure you don’t overlook vital content.
- Act Quickly:
Keeping a pulse on real-time ads will help you react faster in competitive industries, where timing often makes the difference between viral success and missed opportunities.
- Evaluate Regularly:
Update your approach at least quarterly. With advancements in AI and indexing, AdSpy’s coverage will likely improve, and manual tracking may become less necessary.
Final Verdict
Does AdSpy miss viral ads? The answer is yes—but it doesn’t discredit its value as a powerful ad intelligence tool. It remains an excellent option for identifying trends and analyzing mainstream advertorial content. That said, brands aiming for comprehensive insights will benefit from supplementing their work with manual tracking, particularly in niche markets or regional campaigns.
Whether you’re strategizing for a client or benchmarking competitors, a layered approach will ensure you never miss a viral ad.
