Apple Ads vs Google Ads for Mobile Apps: Which Platform Should You Choose?

The question isn’t which platform is better. The question is which role each platform plays in your acquisition portfolio — because most teams optimize the wrong variable and waste budget on both.

Apple Ads (Apple Search Ads) and Google Ads (App Campaigns) solve different problems, target users at different intent levels, and require different optimization approaches. Treating them as interchangeable alternatives is the fastest way to burn money on user acquisition that doesn’t convert.

What you’ll learn:

• How each platform’s algorithm actually works (and why that determines where they fit)
• The decision framework for portfolio role vs. direct comparison
• Head-to-head comparison across targeting, creative, bidding, and reporting
• When to use Apple Ads, when to use Google Ads, and when to use both
• The most expensive mistakes teams make when running both platforms

---

How Each Platform’s Algorithm Works

Understanding the mechanism before tactics matters because the algorithm shapes what’s optimizable and what isn’t.

Apple Search Ads: Intent-Based Auction

Apple Search Ads operates on search intent. Users type a query, Apple runs an auction, and the winning ad appears at the top of search results.

The ranking factors:

1. Max CPT bid — How much you’re willing to pay per tap
2. Relevance score — How well your app matches the search query (metadata alignment, category, ratings)
3. Ad quality — Historical tap-through rate and conversion performance

Apple prioritizes user experience. If your relevance is low, you won’t win auctions even with a high bid. This means metadata quality directly affects paid acquisition costs — a dynamic that doesn’t exist in Google’s system.

Key mechanism: Your organic ASO work reduces your ASA costs. Apps with strong keyword indexing and high ratings pay less per install than apps with weak metadata.

Google App Campaigns: Machine Learning Optimization

Google App Campaigns (formerly Universal App Campaigns / UAC) operates on automated targeting across Google’s network: Search, Play Store, YouTube, Display Network, and Discover.

The system works differently:

1. You provide creative assets (text, images, video)
2. You set a target CPI or CPA goal
3. Google’s algorithm tests combinations and optimizes toward your goal
4. You have minimal control over targeting, placements, or bidding

Google prioritizes volume at your target efficiency. The algorithm finds users likely to install at or below your CPI goal, regardless of where they are in Google’s ecosystem.

Key mechanism: You’re optimizing creative performance, not keyword targeting. The system surfaces your app to users based on their behavior signals, not explicit search queries.

---

The Decision Framework: Portfolio Role, Not Direct Comparison

The mistake most teams make: asking “Apple Ads or Google Ads?” as if they’re substitutes.

The correct question: “What role does each channel play in my acquisition mix?”

The Cost vs. Quality Reality

Apple Ads costs more per install. Google Ads costs less per install. But cost per install is the wrong metric.

In practice:

• Apple Ads CPI: Typically 30-50% higher than Google Ads for the same app category
• Apple Ads LTV: When properly set up with strong ASO and relevant targeting, delivers 2-3x higher LTV than Google Ads
• Apple Ads ROAS: Higher return on ad spend despite higher CPI, because user quality and retention are significantly better

Google Ads CPI: Lower acquisition cost per user

• Google Ads LTV: More variable—some campaigns deliver strong LTV, others bring users who install and never return
• Google Ads ROAS: Can match or exceed Apple Ads ROAS at scale, but requires careful creative optimization and cohort tracking to filter out low-quality volume

The key insight: Paying $5 CPI on Apple Ads for a user with $50 LTV beats paying $3 CPI on Google Ads for a user with $8 LTV. The platform with the lower CPI isn’t always the more efficient channel. Quality-adjusted acquisition—measured by ROAS or payback period—matters more than install cost alone.

Channel Role Definition (Kev’s Framework)

Platform	Primary Role	Cost Profile	Quality Profile	Best For
Apple Search Ads	High-intent acquisition	Higher CPI	Higher LTV & ROAS	Apps with strong ASO, clear search demand
Google App Campaigns	Scaled volume discovery	Lower CPI	Variable quality	Apps needing broad reach, testing new audiences

Apple Ads is your efficiency anchor — but efficiency means ROAS, not CPI. Users searching for terms related to your app have high intent — they’re actively looking for a solution. You’ll pay more per install, but when set up correctly, Apple Ads delivers significantly higher LTV and better ROAS than Google because the intent match is explicit. The higher cost per install reflects higher user quality.

Google Ads is your volume driver at lower cost per install. The algorithm finds users across Google’s properties who match behavioral signals for likely installers. CPI is typically 30-50% lower than Apple Ads, but user quality is more variable. This enables scale beyond what search demand alone supports, but requires careful cohort tracking to ensure the cheaper installs are actually profitable.

When to Use Apple Ads

Use Apple Search Ads as your primary acquisition channel when:

1. Your app has established search demand — users are already searching for keywords related to your category or brand
2. Your ASO is strong — you have clear metadata, good ratings (4.0+), and relevant keywords indexed
3. You need predictable, high-intent users — you’re willing to pay more per install for better retention and LTV
4. Your category is competitive on the App Store — ASA lets you capture search traffic that would otherwise go to competitors

Volume ceiling: Apple Search Ads scales to the limit of search demand for your keywords. If search volume for relevant terms is 10K/month, that’s your ceiling unless you expand into broader, lower-intent keywords.

When to Use Google Ads

Use Google App Campaigns as a complementary volume channel when:

1. You’ve exhausted efficient ASA scale — you’re hitting impression share limits or CPIs are rising on Apple
2. You need broader audience discovery — your app appeals to users who aren’t actively searching but match behavioral profiles
3. You have strong creative assets — Google’s system rewards high-performing video and image creative
4. Your product has wide appeal — the algorithm works best when the addressable audience is large

Volume potential: Google can deliver significantly more volume than Apple because it targets across the entire network, not just App Store search. But quality is more variable — expect to see wider LTV distribution.

When to Use Both (The Compound Strategy)

Most mature mobile marketing strategies run both platforms in defined roles:

• Apple Ads: Brand and high-intent generic keywords (efficiency focus)
• Google Ads: Scaled volume acquisition and audience expansion (growth focus)
• Portfolio target: Blended CPI across both platforms, with Apple anchoring efficiency and Google driving incremental volume

The feedback loop: Apple Ads tells you which keywords convert to paying users. You incorporate those insights into ASO metadata, which improves organic rankings AND reduces ASA costs. Google Ads discovers new audience segments you didn’t know existed, which can inform keyword expansion for Apple.

Budget allocation: Start with 60-70% on Apple Ads until you hit efficiency limits, then scale Google to capture additional volume. Rebalance quarterly based on quality-adjusted performance.

---

Head-to-Head Comparison

Targeting Capabilities

Dimension	Apple Search Ads	Google App Campaigns
Keyword targeting	Full control (Exact, Broad, Search Match)	None (automated)
Demographic targeting	Age, gender, location	Age, gender, location (automated optimization)
Device targeting	iPhone, iPad	Android only (separate from iOS)
Audience targeting	Limited (Custom Product Pages per campaign)	Behavioral signals across Google network
Placement control	App Store search only	No control (auto-distributed across Search, YouTube, Display, Discover)

Winner for precision: Apple Ads. You control exactly which search terms trigger your ads.

Winner for discovery: Google Ads. The algorithm finds users you wouldn’t have thought to target.

Creative Requirements

Element	Apple Search Ads	Google App Campaigns
Ad format	App Store listing (icon, screenshots, ratings)	Text + image + video combinations
Creative assets	Pulled from App Store listing	You provide (4 text lines, 20 images, 20 videos)
Custom Product Pages	Yes — assign different screenshots per campaign	No
Video requirement	Optional (App Preview)	Strongly recommended for YouTube placements
Creative testing	Limited (CPP variants)	Extensive (algorithm tests all combinations)

Winner for simplicity: Apple Ads. Your App Store listing IS the ad.

Winner for creative flexibility: Google Ads. More control over messaging and formats.

Bidding & Budget Control

Feature	Apple Search Ads	Google App Campaigns
Bidding model	Max CPT (cost per tap) bid	Target CPI or tCPA (target cost per action)
Bid control	Full manual control per keyword/ad group	Minimal (set target, algorithm optimizes)
Budget pacing	Daily budget, even distribution	Daily budget, algorithm-controlled pacing
Bid adjustments	Manual adjustments by performance	Automatic based on goal
Minimum budget	$0.50 min CPT bid	~$50-100/day recommended for learning

Winner for control: Apple Ads. You decide exactly how much to bid on each keyword.

Winner for automation: Google Ads. Set a CPI target and let the algorithm find efficient volume.

Reporting & Attribution

Capability	Apple Search Ads	Google App Campaigns
Keyword-level reporting	Full transparency (search terms, match type, performance)	None (campaign-level only)
Placement reporting	Single placement (App Store search)	No placement visibility
Conversion tracking	Via MMP or Apple’s attribution API	Via MMP or Google’s SDK
Creative performance	Limited (CPP-level)	Asset-level performance scores
Audience insights	Demographic breakdowns	Demographic + behavioral signals

Winner for transparency: Apple Ads. You see exactly which keywords drive installs.

Winner for creative insights: Google Ads. Asset-level scores show what works.

---

When to Start With Apple Ads

Start with Apple Search Ads if:

1. You’re on iOS — Apple Ads only runs on the App Store
2. You have basic ASO done — app title, subtitle, keyword field filled out with relevant terms
3. Your ratings are decent — 4.0+ star rating (below this, fix your product first)
4. You have a defined budget — even $500-1,000/month can generate meaningful data
5. You know your category keywords — you have a list of 20-50 relevant search terms

Why Apple first: Faster data feedback. You’ll know within a week which keywords convert and at what cost. This data informs both your ASO strategy and whether Google Ads makes sense.

Expected timeline: 2-4 weeks to validate keyword performance, 30-60 days to optimize toward efficiency targets.

---

When to Start With Google Ads

Start with Google App Campaigns if:

1. You’re on Android — Google Ads is the primary paid acquisition channel for Android apps
2. You have strong video creative — the algorithm rewards high-quality video assets for YouTube placements
3. Your audience is broad — your app appeals to a wide demographic, not a niche category
4. You have budget for learning — minimum $50-100/day recommended for the algorithm to optimize
5. You’re comfortable with automation — you won’t have keyword-level control

Why Google in some cases: If your app doesn’t have strong search demand (e.g., new category, unique concept), Apple Ads won’t deliver volume. Google’s discovery-based targeting can find users who wouldn’t search for you but would use your app.

Expected timeline: 1-2 weeks for algorithm learning, 30-60 days to reach stable performance.

---

The Most Expensive Mistakes

1. Running Both Platforms With Separate Teams

Your ASA team and your Google Ads team don’t talk. They optimize for different KPIs. They compete for the same budget without coordinating strategy.

Cost: Duplicated acquisition of the same users, inefficient budget allocation, missed optimization insights that would benefit both channels.

Fix: Unified acquisition strategy with blended targets. One owner for user acquisition, not separate channel managers.

2. Ignoring ASO When Running Apple Ads

You treat Apple Ads as separate from organic. You don’t optimize metadata because you’re paying for installs anyway.

Cost: You’re paying 20-30% more per install than you should. Strong ASO metadata improves your relevance score, which lowers CPT and increases impression share.

Fix: Run ASO and ASA as a feedback loop. Apple Ads tells you which keywords convert; ASO makes those keywords cheaper to acquire over time.

3. Setting the Same CPI Goal Across Both Platforms (The Efficiency Trap)

Your target is $5 CPI on Apple and $5 CPI on Google because that’s your blended efficiency goal.

Cost: You’re optimizing for the wrong metric. Apple Ads will have a higher CPI by nature—you’re paying for higher-intent users with better retention and LTV. Forcing Apple to hit the same CPI as Google means under-bidding on high-value keywords and missing profitable installs. Meanwhile, Google Ads optimized purely for low CPI often delivers cheap installs that churn immediately.

The reality: Apple Ads at $8 CPI with $60 LTV (7.5x ROAS) is dramatically more efficient than Google Ads at $4 CPI with $12 LTV (3x ROAS). The lower CPI looks better on a dashboard but destroys actual profitability.

Fix: Set efficiency targets by ROAS or payback period, not CPI. Apple should deliver higher ROAS despite higher CPI (2-3x return is realistic when set up correctly). Google should be evaluated on volume at acceptable ROAS, not hitting an artificial CPI floor that filters out all quality users.

4. Treating Google App Campaigns Like a Search Channel

You expect keyword-level control and try to “optimize” placements or keywords you can’t see.

Cost: Frustration and misallocated effort. Google’s system doesn’t work like Apple’s. You can’t control placements, and trying to hack around that wastes time.

Fix: Embrace automation. Focus on creative quality, CPI target accuracy, and audience exclusions (if needed). Let the algorithm do what it’s designed to do.

5. Not Tracking Quality by Channel

You measure CPI, but not retention or LTV by acquisition source. Both platforms hit your CPI goal, so you assume they’re performing equally.

Cost: One channel is delivering high-volume, low-quality installs that churn in 48 hours. The other is delivering lower volume but 3x the LTV. Your blended metrics hide the difference.

Fix: MMP attribution with cohort tracking. Measure D1, D7, D30 retention and LTV by channel and campaign. Optimize for quality-adjusted acquisition, not volume or CPI alone.

---

The Bottom Line

Apple Ads and Google Ads aren’t competitors for your budget — they’re complementary roles in your acquisition portfolio.

The core trade-off to understand:

• Apple Ads: Higher cost per install, but significantly higher LTV and ROAS when set up correctly with strong ASO and relevant targeting
• Google Ads: Lower cost per install, but more variable user quality requiring careful cohort tracking

Use Apple Search Ads for:

• High-intent user acquisition (users actively searching for what you do)
• Quality over volume (higher CPI justified by 2-3x better LTV and ROAS)
• Keyword-level optimization and control
• Compounding your ASO work (paid and organic reinforce each other)

Use Google App Campaigns for:

• Scaled volume at lower acquisition cost
• Audience discovery (finding users you wouldn’t have targeted)
• Creative-driven optimization (video and visual assets)
• Android-first or cross-platform acquisition

The best strategy runs both:

• Apple Ads captures high-intent search traffic—expect higher CPI but better ROAS
• Google Ads scales volume at lower cost—expect variable quality but broader reach
• Portfolio-level optimization balances quality (Apple) and volume (Google)
• Measure success by blended ROAS, not blended CPI
• Insights from one channel inform the other

Most mobile apps with mature acquisition strategies allocate 60-70% to Apple Ads and 30-40% to Google Ads, rebalancing quarterly based on ROAS and payback performance. The goal isn’t to pick the platform with lower CPI — it’s to define each channel’s role and optimize toward profitable growth, not cheap installs.

---

Running user acquisition and unsure which platform fits your strategy? Book a free growth diagnostic — I’ll review your app, category, and objectives, and tell you exactly where to allocate budget.