Wyd VS mbuzz.co

mbuzz.co's answer:

Every attribution tool runs a model under the hood and reports its number like it came from physics. mbuzz is the only one that shows the model. Eight of them side by side, plus a SQL-like DSL to edit or write your own. You stop arguing about which channel works and start arguing about which model you should trust.

mbuzz.co's answer:

Dreamdata, HockeyStack, and Northbeam all ship with a proprietary "data-driven" model you can't see inside. You pay $1,400–$5,000 a month to trust their math. mbuzz runs eight models you can inspect, lets you edit the logic in a SQL-like DSL, keeps your data exportable on every plan, and starts at $0. For a $1–100M company spending $20K–$1M a month on ads, that's the difference between renting an attribution tool and owning an attribution stack.

mbuzz.co's answer:

Technical marketers, marketing ops, growth engineers, and data-savvy CMOs at startups and mid-market SaaS, DTC, fintech, and healthtech companies spending $20K–$1M a month on paid media. Specifically the ones who've stopped trusting their dashboard — who want to audit the math themselves, not hear "trust our algorithm."

mbuzz.co's answer:

Years of wrestling with the limitations of various existing solutions, platform-inflated ROAS, and enterprise attribution tools that cost more than the budgets they were measuring. Every tool I tried picked one model and hid the math. I wanted to compare models, argue with them, and write my own rules — so I built one. mbuzz is the attribution platform I wished existed when I was trying to explain channel performance to a CFO who didn't believe the Meta pixel.

mbuzz.co's answer:

Ruby on Rails (backend + dashboard), PostgreSQL, Sidekiq for background jobs, Stimulus/Turbo for the frontend. Open-source SDKs in Ruby, Node, Python, and PHP. Deployed via Kamal on DigitalOcean.