The published terms, side by side
| Dimension | Ezoic | Mediavine |
|---|---|---|
| Entry | No minimum (Access Now, 2021) Ezoic2026-08 | 50,000 sessions / 30 days Mediavine2026-08 |
| Published share | Levels program terms; no flat % printed Ezoic2026-08 | 75% base to 90% by program/scale Mediavine Help2026-08 |
| Reporting basis | EPMV (per 1,000 visitors) Ezoic2026-08 | Session RPM (per 1,000 sessions) |
| Model | Self-serve platform with automated testing | Managed network with human ad ops |
| Small-site path | Same platform from zero traffic | Journey tier from 10,000 sessions |
Normalizing their numbers before comparing
both are visit-based: EPMV ≈ session RPM (visitors vs sessions differ slightly)
to compare either with AdSense: divide by pages/session
EPMV $15.00, 1.5 pages/session → $10.00 page-basis
The trap is comparing either visit-based figure against a page RPM raw: the visit basis wins by your pages-per-session multiple before any real difference appears. Full walkthrough on the basis page.
What switching involves
Ezoic to Mediavine at 50,000 sessions is the common direction: the application reviews content and traffic quality Mediavine2026-08, ad serving migrates stacks, and reporting changes basis, so keep a pre-switch export for a clean before/after. Published evidence on outcomes is limited to each company's own case-study pages, which are marketing selections; treat them as existence proofs, not averages. The decision rule this site can defend: below the session bar the question is Journey vs Ezoic; at the bar, choose between Mediavine's printed share table and Ezoic's printed platform terms, priced on your own numbers in the what-if calculator.