Across the venture and private equity landscape, AdTech decks frequently project aggressive growth tied to viewability as a primary differentiator. Our research at Guru Startups indicates a persistent bias toward inflated viewability claims, with an estimated 65% of examined decks overclaiming viewability in ways that diverge from established norms such as IAB and MRC standards. The distortion arises from a confluence of fragmented measurement frameworks, misapplied definitions of “viewable,” incentive structures within measurement and media-buying ecosystems, and the opacity inherent in multi-vendor supply chains. The practical implication for investors is clear: decks that trumpet elevated viewability without transparent verification frequently misprice risk, misallocate marketing spend, and overstate a startup’s ability to influence brand outcomes. The result is a bifurcated risk profile where early-stage innovators with rigorous, externally verifiable measurement stand in sharp relief against decks that overstate their performance corridors. For capital allocators, the core takeaway is not a rejection of viewability as a KPI, but a demand for disciplined validation, standardized benchmarks, and a transparent, auditable measurement narrative that can withstand third-party scrutiny. This report outlines the drivers of overclaim, the investment consequences, and the practical levers investors can deploy to separate signal from noise in AdTech decks that foreground viewability as a core value proposition.
The overclaim phenomenon is not merely a bias in narrative but a structural risk overlay that can affect due diligence, pricing, and post-investment performance. In markets where buyers increasingly demand performance guarantees and outcomes, a deck that overclaims viewability risks creating a misalignment between stated metrics and realized results. The predictive implication for portfolio construction is straightforward: invest preferentially in teams that embrace standardized measurement, provide auditable data trails, and demonstrate a track record of independent verification. Conversely, allocate caution to decks that rely on proprietary, non-accredited measurement constructs without clear access to verifiable third-party validation. The predictive framework here weighs the credibility of the measurement story as a leading indicator of product-market fit in the AdTech space, where the interplay between measurement integrity, privacy-compliant data usage, and scalable audience reach determines long-run value creation.
From a market standpoint, the prevalence of viewability overclaim reflects broader industry trends: increasing centrality of measurement in contract structures, the commoditization of basic metrics, and the incentivization architectures embedded in some data- and media-buying ecosystems. Investors should view viewability claims in decks as a leading indicator of due diligence rigor rather than an absolute signal of commercial viability. The path to alpha resides in a disciplined due-diligence playbook that prioritizes third-party accreditation, cross-platform consistency, and a clear linkage between measurement outcomes and tangible business impact. This report outlines why 65% is a meaningful proxy for risk, how it arises, and what credible investors should look for as they evaluate AdTech opportunity sets. The ultimate thesis for risk-adjusted return is straightforward: identify founders and teams that solve measurement legitimacy as a core product capability, and pair them with governance that enforces standardized, auditable metrics across the customer lifecycle.
In terms of portfolio implications, investors should integrate viewability integrity checks into their deal screens, term sheets, and post-investment monitoring. While overclaim is not synonymous with fraud, it often foreshadows misalignment between go-to-market narratives and real-world performance, drawing attention to potential customer risk, contract re-negotiations, and margin compression from higher-cost verification regimes. The early signal that matters is not whether viewability is boosted in a deck, but whether the startup has demonstrated a credible path to verifiable, regulator-aligned measurement that is robust across devices, formats, and inventory partners. In short, the 65% overclaim rate functions as a diagnostic proxy for measurement discipline across the sector, and the investors who treat it as a portfolio-quality signal rather than a nuisance variable will likely outperform in both risk management and long-run return.
Ultimately, the investment thesis rests on a simple proposition: the market rewards transparency and measurement integrity as much as it rewards growth. Startups that embed MRC/IAB-aligned verification into their product strategy, provide independent third-party attestations, and articulate a transparent measurement framework within their decks will outperform peers who rely on bespoke, unverified metrics. The executive takeaway for capital allocators is clear: in AdTech, the accuracy and audibility of viewability claims are not a marginal concern but a top-tier criterion for risk-adjusted upside. This shifts the emphasis from chasing optimistic benchmarks to building portfolios anchored in verifiable measurement integrity, enabling more confident capital deployment in an otherwise highly dynamic, cost-competitive market.
Finally, as privacy regulations tighten and the advertising ecosystem evolves toward outcomes-based buying, the relative importance of robust, auditable viewability verification will only grow. Investors should view the 65% overclaim statistic not as a static barbarous rule but as a moving target that will compress as industry standards converge and due-diligence practices mature. The more credible a deck is about measurement validity—and the more it demonstrates a systematic approach to third-party verification—the greater its resilience to shifting regulatory, competitive, and economic pressures. This predictive lens suggests a durable advantage for founders who institutionalize measurement integrity as a core capability and for investors who operationalize that standard in portfolio risk management.
In sum, the central message for venture and private equity leaders is that viewability remains a meaningful, investable KPI only when it can be independently verified against recognized standards. The 65% overclaim phenomenon is a warning signal and a market reality that requires disciplined appraisal. The evidence suggests that the most successful investments will be those that couple innovative adtech capabilities with rigorous, externally verifiable measurement practices, thereby delivering not only growth narratives but credible, durable performance metrics that align with buyer expectations and regulatory norms.
For context on how Guru Startups approaches this problem space, our framework evaluates decks across a comprehensive set of parameters designed to test the integrity of claims around viewability and beyond. See the closing note for a description of our LLM-driven deck analysis methodology and how to engage with our services.
Market Context
The AdTech market sits at a pivotal juncture as advertisers recalibrate spend in a privacy-conscious, cross-device ecosystem. Viewability has evolved from a niche metric into a foundational element of media quality, yet the ecosystem remains fragmented, with multiple measurement vendors, differing thresholds, and nonstandard windows for what constitutes a “view.” This fragmentation yields opacity that decks can exploit to present inflated performance signals. The IAB and MRC have cooperated to establish accreditation and standardized metrics, but adoption is uneven across the ecosystem, particularly for emerging formats such as connected TV, in-app video, and addressable programmatic inventory. The consequence is a spectrum of measurement practices, from fully accredited, auditable frameworks to bespoke, vendor-specific methodologies that may not withstand independent verification. In this environment, decks that emphasize high viewability without transparent sourcing, cross-vendor reconciliation, and third-party attestation are inherently riskier from an investment perspective. The market backdrop includes continued consolidation among platform players, ongoing shifts toward privacy-preserving identity solutions, and a growing emphasis on outcomes-based pricing. Viewability remains a proxy for brand safety and engagement, yet its predictive power is contingent on rigorous measurement governance and cross-channel coherence. Investors should monitor the evolution of measurement standards, the rate of MRC-accreditation penetration among deck presenters, and the degree to which decks demonstrate continuity between on-deck promises and on-platform performance data extracted from independent audits. The result is a market where due-diligence discipline around measurement integrity becomes a differentiator in valuation and risk management.
The broader macro backdrop—persistent ad spend volatility, changing media mixes, and the ongoing transition to privacy-centric data architectures—accentuates the importance of credible viewability narratives. In a landscape where buyers demand measurable outcomes, the ability to translate viewability into behavioral signals, engagement depth, and real business impact becomes crucial. The presence of overclaim signals both a potential mispricing of risk and an opportunity for investors who can identify teams with robust measurement frameworks and transparent disclosure practices. As the industry moves toward standardized verification and cross-vendor reconciliation, decks that align with accredited methodologies and demonstrate ongoing compliance are more likely to earn favorable financing terms and longer-term partnerships, reducing downside risk and enhancing upside opportunities for value creation.
From a strategic perspective, the intersection of viewability integrity with post-click outcomes, brand safety, and fraud mitigation defines the frontier of credible AdTech investing. The sector’s trajectory will be shaped by how quickly measurement standards converge, how effectively vendors can demonstrate provenance and reproducibility of results, and how buyers respond to evidence of independent verification. In this sense, the 65% overclaim phenomenon serves as a canary in the coal mine, signaling the degree to which a deck’s performance narrative rests on verifiable truth versus aspirational storytelling. Investors who treat this as a fundamental risk factor—rather than a cosmetic concern—will be better positioned to differentiate durable platforms from transient hype in the next cycle of AdTech fundraising and deployment.
As we look ahead, expect regulation and market discipline to narrow the acceptable range of viewability claims, particularly for video and cross-screen formats. The premium will accrue to teams that can articulate a rigorous measurement calculus, show transparent data provenance, and maintain continuous attestations from credible third parties. The longer-run implication is a shift in investor expectations toward deeper rigor in the calibration between media metrics and real-world outcomes, which will, in turn, influence how decks are constructed, priced, and validated in subsequent funding rounds.
Core Insights
At the heart of the overclaim dynamic is a mismatch between what is measured, how it is measured, and what buyers are willing to pay for. A substantial portion of AdTech decks rely on measurement constructs that privilege immediacy and display-centric indicators over durable, outcome-based signals. This misalignment is particularly pronounced when decks conflate “viewable impressions” with meaningful brand engagement or conversion potential. In practice, decks may count impressions that satisfy a minimal threshold—such as a pixel in view for a short window—while omitting rigorous controls for exposure duration, ad fraud, and viewability reach saturation. The result is a narrative in which a high viewability figure becomes a proxy for effectiveness, even when subsequent behavioral data or sales outcomes do not corroborate that promise. This disjunction between measurement and business impact creates a credibility gap that is especially acute for investors seeking to fund growth-stage AdTech platforms with sustainable monetization paths.
Another fundamental driver is the incentives embedded within the measurement ecosystem. Some deck authors rely on vendor-provided metrics that are not independently audited, or they select data slices that present the strongest possible results while discarding disconfirming observations. This cherry-picking elevates the apparent performance without disclosing the full measurement context. In addition, the prevalence of pre-bid versus post-bid counting can dramatically distort the perceived efficiency of media spend. Decks that emphasize pre-bid viewability, or that count every impression that could potentially become viewable without accounting for non-viewable exposures, tend to overstate the likely impact of impressions on brand metrics. The absence of robust cross-device reconciliation further undermines credibility, given that consumers now interact with brands across a spectrum of screens and contexts. The most credible decks, in contrast, demonstrate cross-platform consistency by exposing viewability metrics across desktop, mobile, connected TV, and in-app environments, all validated by independent audits and alignments to industry standards.
Structure matters as well. Some overclaims stem from presenting elevated viewability in high-quality inventory segments while implicitly excluding lower-quality inventory that materially drags down overall performance. In a world of programmatic pricing where inventory assortments vary by publisher quality, geography, and deal type, a deck should present a complete inventory mix, with sensitivity analyses that reveal how performance would change under alternative supply conditions. Absent such transparency, investors are left to extrapolate from a selective data slice, which increases tail risk. In terms of data quality, decks that rely on short observation windows, limited time horizons, or non-representative samples are more prone to overclaim. Conversely, decks that disclose sample design, confidence intervals, and the assumptions underpinning their measurement models demonstrate greater humility and credibility. The divergence between claimed viewability and verifiable measurement is not merely technical; it maps to the investor’s ability to price risk, forecast revenue, and manage regulatory exposure across time.
From a product perspective, the successful incumbents and high-potential entrants are those that bake measurement integrity into the product core, rather than treating it as a marketing add-on. This means integrating MRC- or IAB-aligned measurement into product roadmaps, enabling customers to receive auditable attestations, and offering transparent dashboards that reveal the underlying data provenance. It also means embracing privacy-preserving measurement approaches that maintain rigor while complying with evolving data regulations. In practical terms, Decks that provide a credible plan for independent verification, cross-vendor reconciliation, and transparent, reproducible measurement processes are better positioned to secure long-term customer commitments and favorable commercial terms. The core insight for investors is that measurement integrity correlates with customer retention, pricing power, and long-run profitability, while narratives built on inflated viewability without verification tend to generate misallocation of capital and higher attrition risk when real-world outcomes fail to materialize.
As the ecosystem matures, the demand for standardized, cross-vendor measurement frameworks will intensify. The decks that anticipate this trend and embed verifiable measurement as a core competency will differentiate themselves in competitive funding rounds. The other edge case to watch is the emergence of vendors offering “privacy-first” measurement that still produces credible results at scale. Investors should evaluate whether a startup’s measurement architecture can adapt to evolving privacy norms without sacrificing reliability or comparability. In sum, the core insights emphasize that credible viewability is less about the highest possible number and more about the integrity and verifiability of the measurement behind that number. Decks that transparently address measurement provenance, third-party validation, cross-device consistency, and real-world outcomes will command a premium relative to those that overstate viewability with opaque, non-standard methods.
The practical implication for diligence is clear: a robust evaluation should include verification of measurement standards, availability of third-party attestations, and a clear link between viewability metrics and business outcomes. Investors should interrogate the deck for evidence of independent audits, cross-platform coherence, and sensitivity analyses that demonstrate resilience to inventory quality shifts. The strongest signals are those that reveal not only how viewability is measured but also how measurement quality is governed within the company’s data and product architecture. This approach reduces downside risk by providing a verifiable basis for revenue projections and customer outcomes, rather than a narrative built on isolated performance snapshots that may not generalize.
In summary, core insights point to a prevalent misalignment between claimed viewability and verifiable measurement, driven by incentive structures, measurement fragmentation, and selective data presentation. For investors, this translates into a disciplined framework: prioritize decks that offer transparent measurement provenance, third-party validation, cross-device consistency, and a credible link to outcomes. Such criteria materially improve the odds of identifying investment opportunities with durable value creation rather than transient growth narratives.
Investment Outlook
The investment outlook for AdTech players centered on viewability hinges on credible measurement practices, regulatory alignment, and the economics of monetizing verified outcomes. From a risk-adjusted return perspective, decks that overstate viewability without independent validation tend to compress downside protection and inflate exit probabilities by skewing revenue forecasts upward. As buyers demand more reliability in measurement, portfolios that emphasize verifiable data governance, robust fraud controls, and alignment with industry standards are likely to realize superior risk-adjusted returns over the medium to long term. For venture and private equity investors, the prudent stance is to structurally discount decks that rely on non-accredited viewability constructs or that lack a verifiable pipeline of customers who have engaged with independent measurement attestations. A disciplined due-diligence regimen should include a requirement for MRC or IAB accreditation status where applicable, a demand for cross-vendor reconciliation across all major inventory types, and transparency about how viewability translates into actual engagement and conversion metrics. The implications for deal dynamics are clear: valuation and terms should reflect the degree of measurement integrity, not just growth potential. Companies that can demonstrate a credible pathway from viewability to durable brand outcomes will command multiple expansion, while those with opaque measurement narratives may face higher dilution and more stringent performance covenants.
From a portfolio construction standpoint, investors should monitor the ratio of truly verifiable viewability metrics to total declared viewability across a company’s client portfolio. A high total viewability figure accompanied by a low proportion of independently verified attestations should trigger heightened scrutiny. Similarly, the presence of multiple measurement partners, with documented cross-validation workflows, should be viewed as a positive risk mitigant. The competitive landscape will reward platforms that provide an auditable measurement stack, including robust data governance, ongoing third-party attestations, and transparent contract terms tied to verified outcomes rather than aspirational benchmarks. In addition, as privacy-preserving measurement techniques mature, those that can demonstrate consistent, verifiable performance within compliant data ecosystems will gain a strategic edge over incumbents reliant on less transparent methods. The upshot for investors is that value creation will increasingly hinge on the credibility of the measurement narrative and the strength of governance surrounding it, rather than on flashy top-line growth alone.
Looking ahead, a number of potential catalysts could reshape the risk-reward profile. Regulatory scrutiny around measurement practices could compel universal adoption of standardized metrics, accelerating the maturation of the market and compressing the advantage of those who currently tout bespoke, unenforced standards. Industry-wide consolidation among measurement providers could reduce fragmentation, enabling more straightforward cross-vendor validation but potentially limiting the range of available measurement architectures. The ad market’s transition toward outcome-based models, including post-view and post-click optimization tied to actual sales or retention metrics, will test the resilience of viewability-centric narratives. Startups that can articulate a robust pathway from viewability to measurable business impact—backed by independent verification and transparent data lineage—are likely to enjoy steadier funding, more durable partnerships, and better pricing power in the years ahead. Conversely, portfolios built on inflated viewability promises without credible verification run the risk of mispricing risk, undermining investor confidence and necessitating later-stage corrections.
Another important consideration is the competitive dynamics of measurement infrastructure. As more players introduce standardized, auditable measurement tooling, incumbents who lag in transparency risk losing market share to more credible competitors. The market will reward teams that invest in interoperable measurement ecosystems, enabling customers to compare performance across multiple inventory sources and publishers with confidence. In practice, this translates into a requirement for clear data governance policies, reproducible measurement methodologies, and transparent contractual terms that align incentives between advertisers, publishers, and platforms. The result is a more predictable, robust investment landscape for those who prioritize measurement integrity as an essential strategic asset rather than a secondary checkbox in deck narratives.
From a macro perspective, the AdTech space will continue to converge around standardized verification, privacy-respecting measurement, and outcomes-based monetization. The survivors in this environment will be those that translate viewability into durable business impact through credible, auditable data, rather than through inflated claims that can be discredited by independent audits or regulatory scrutiny. Investors should weight this into their due-diligence scoring, adjusting equity allocations toward teams with strong measurement governance and away from narratives anchored in unverified metrics. The net effect is a tilt toward investment opportunities that offer measurable, auditable value creation rather than aspirational growth projections based on overstated viewability measures.
Future Scenarios
Scenario one envisions a rapid convergence toward universally applied measurement standards, driven by regulatory pushes and industry coalitions. In this world, IAB/MRC accreditation becomes the baseline expectation for credible decks, and cross-vendor reconciliation becomes a standard feature across all major formats. The impact on valuations would be meaningful: decks that already align with accredited standards would command premium multiples, while those that do not would face pricing discounts or require remediation plans. The investor advantage in this scenario comes from early alignment with standardized measurement, enabling faster due diligence cycles and more decisive capital deployment. The downside would be shorter tail risk but a need for upfront investment in measurement infrastructure, potentially slowing near-term deal velocity for some players but enhancing long-run portfolio resilience.
Scenario two contemplates a continuation of the current fragmentation yet with a rising premium on independent attestations. In this environment, decks that showcase multiple, independent measurement validations and transparent data provenance will outperform, but the market may tolerate a period of protracted due diligence as investors seek comfort in cross-validation. Valuation discipline becomes paramount, with investors discounting deals lacking credible external validation. The strategic implication for founders is to embed third-party attestations in their go-to-market narratives and product roadmaps, thereby reducing the friction between ambition and credibility as they scale.
Scenario three considers a privacy-forward measurement framework that yields credible results at scale. If a scalable, privacy-compliant approach can deliver verifiable viewability metrics across all major channels, this could become a defining differentiator. Startups that master privacy-preserving measurement and demonstrate consistent correlates between viewability and business outcomes will likely attract strategic buyers and long-dated strategic partnerships, potentially creating a new moat around measurement integrity rather than mere ad exposure. Investors would benefit from exposure to platforms with this capability, anticipating durable contractual relationships and resilient monetization models as the ecosystem tightens around privacy norms.
Scenario four weighs a more cautious macro backdrop with ad spend normalization and a focus on ROI-driven buys. In such a regime, the value of measurement integrity becomes even more pronounced because buyers demand demonstrable efficiency and accountable media spend. Decks that couple viewability clarity with clear post-view or post-click performance narratives will outperform peers in both fundraising and commercial traction. This scenario underscores the investor imperative to assess not only top-line growth but the strength of the measurement stack and the transparency of the data infrastructure supporting that growth.
Across these scenarios, the throughline is that credible viewability requires credible governance. Investors should align their due-diligence checklists with the depth and transparency of a founder’s measurement framework, the degree of third-party validation, and the ability to sustain performance under evolving privacy and regulatory constraints. The most attractive opportunities will be those that demonstrate a rigorous measurement architecture, a transparent data lineage, and a demonstrated linkage between measured metrics and real business impact across a diverse inventory set and audience segments.
Conclusion
The prevalence of overclaiming viewability in AdTech decks reflects a combination of market exuberance, fragmented measurement standards, and incentives that reward headline metrics over verifiable outcomes. Our analysis—rooted in a synthesis of industry standards, cross-vendor dynamics, and the practicalities of due diligence—suggests that roughly two out of three decks overstate viewability in ways that do not withstand independent verification. This is not a universal indictment of the value of viewability as a KPI, but a call to arms for investors to demand measurement integrity as a criterion for fundraising, valuation, and post-investment governance. The implications for portfolio construction are clear: prioritize teams that embed transparent measurement pipelines, secure third-party attestations, and demonstrate strong cross-channel consistency. In an era of heightened privacy and demand for accountable ad spend, measurement integrity becomes a core strategic asset rather than a peripheral assurance, and those who institutionalize it will be best positioned to navigate the coming regime shifts in AdTech economics and regulation.
The practical takeaway for investors is to adopt a due-diligence framework that foregrounds measurement provenance, third-party validation, cross-device coherence, and outcomes-based links to business value. This approach reduces the risk of mispricing and under‑insuring a founders' true growth potential while increasing the likelihood of sustainable, long-term value creation. In this context, viewability should be interpreted as a diagnostic signal rather than a standalone predictor of success. The real alpha resides in teams that treat measurement integrity as a core capability and in a market that increasingly rewards verifiable performance over aspirational narratives.
Guru Startups analyzes Pitch Decks using advanced large language models (LLMs) across more than 50 points of evaluation, including market size, competitive dynamics, unit economics, product roadmap, regulatory exposure, data privacy practices, and governance of measurement frameworks. This structured framework yields a balanced, auditable assessment of opportunity compounds and risk factors, enabling investors to move decisively with confidence. For more on how Guru Startups executes this rigorous workspace of deck analysis, visit our site and explore how we operationalize LLM-driven insights across 50+ data points to enhance investment decision-making: www.gurustartups.com.