Trade Desk vs PubMatic: Revenue, Margins and Key Risks

Trade Desk vs PubMatic produced sharply different financial outcomes in the second quarter of 2026. The Trade Desk remains substantially larger and more profitable, but its revenue growth slowed, adjusted EBITDA declined, and results fell below its own guidance. PubMatic, meanwhile, grew faster, improved its margins, and exceeded the top of its forecast.

The Trade Desk (NASDAQ: TTD) generated approximately nine times PubMatic’s Q2 revenue and more than 12 times its adjusted EBITDA. PubMatic (NASDAQ: PUBM), however, delivered the stronger year-over-year growth rate and entered Q3 with more favorable year-over-year guidance comparisons.

Subscribe To Our Push Notifications Now!

That does not make PubMatic the stronger business overall. Its positive GAAP operating income remained small; it still reported a GAAP net loss, and its filing identifies material dependence on major demand-side platforms. The available disclosures do not quantify that exposure on a basis directly comparable with The Trade Desk’s client-concentration risks. At the same time, The Trade Desk’s scale does not erase the difference in Q2 results relative to the companies’ prior guidance.

ABBO News previously examined the Trade Desk and PubMatic Q2 earnings divergence. Investors unfamiliar with the companies’ different positions in the advertising supply chain can also review how demand-side and supply-side platforms make money.

Trade Desk vs PubMatic: The Q2 2026 Scorecard

The comparison below uses results for the three months ended June 30, 2026, together with the corresponding quarter of 2025. Figures come from The Trade Desk’s official Q2 release and PubMatic’s official Q2 release.

Growth rates, operating margins, and stock-based-compensation ratios are ABBO News calculations based on company-reported figures. The Trade Desk’s liquidity figure comprises cash and cash equivalents plus short-term investments; PubMatic’s consists of cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities. Adjusted EBITDA is a non-GAAP measure and should be considered alongside GAAP results.

The table produces two conclusions that can coexist.

The Trade Desk remains far ahead in absolute revenue, operating profit, adjusted EBITDA, and liquidity. PubMatic delivered the better year-over-year change, with faster revenue growth and meaningful margin improvement.

Scale and momentum are not the same thing. The Trade Desk currently has more of the former; PubMatic delivered more of the latter in Q2.

What the Revenue Difference Does—and Does Not—Show

The Trade Desk’s $715.1 million and PubMatic’s $78.6 million can be compared as reported company revenue. They highlight a substantial difference in scale and help explain why The Trade Desk generates higher absolute profit.

They should not, however, be interpreted as a direct market-share comparison or as a measurement of all advertising dollars handled by each platform. 

The Trade Desk primarily operates a demand-side platform that helps advertisers and agencies buy digital advertising. Its latest annual filing explains that the company generally charges a platform fee based on client spending, in addition to fees for data and other services. It generally recognizes revenue net of amounts paid to advertising-inventory and data suppliers.

PubMatic operates primarily on the supply side, helping publishers sell and monetize advertising inventory.  Its latest annual filing explains that revenue is recognized net of payments owed to publishers and reductions for certain supply-path-optimization rebates.

Those filings are being used here to explain the companies’ continuing accounting models, not to compare 2025 annual performance with Q2 2026.

The practical implication is straightforward: The Trade Desk’s roughly 9.1-to-1 revenue advantage confirms its greater accounting and operational scale, but it does not prove that the platform processed 9.1 times as much advertising activity or holds 9.1 times PubMatic’s market share.

The Clearest Results Gap Appears Against Prior Guidance

A useful way to assess the quarter is to compare each company’s Q2 result with the forecast it issued three months earlier.

In its Q1 2026 earnings release, The Trade Desk projected at least $750 million in Q2 revenue and approximately $260 million in adjusted EBITDA.

PubMatic’s Q1 2026 earnings release projected Q2 revenue of $68 million to $70 million and adjusted EBITDA of $8 million to $10 million. 

The Trade Desk’s revenue finished approximately 4.7% below its stated minimum, while adjusted EBITDA was about 7.2% below the approximate guidepost.

PubMatic’s revenue exceeded the top of its range by approximately 12.3%. Its adjusted EBITDA was almost twice the top of its forecast.

These figures demonstrate actual outcomes relative to management’s forecasts, not market-share changes or, by themselves, superior operational execution. PubMatic may have benefited from conservative guidance, a favorable revenue mix, or stronger-than-anticipated spending, while The Trade Desk may have encountered weaker spending or execution challenges.

At minimum, they establish that PubMatic exceeded its prior guidance while The Trade Desk fell below its own. The results alone do not establish the full cause of that divergence.

The Trade Desk Still Has the Stronger Profit Base 

The Trade Desk’s adjusted EBITDA margin declined from approximately 39.0% in Q2 2025 to 33.7% in Q2 2026. Its adjusted EBITDA also fell 10.9% despite revenue increasing 3.0%.

That is a negative operating signal. Total GAAP operating expenses increased from approximately $577.3 million to $613.5 million while revenue grew only 3.0%, and adjusted EBITDA declined. The release does not identify one expense or adjustment as the sole cause of the deterioration.

Even after that decline, The Trade Desk’s adjusted EBITDA margin remained about 8.8 percentage points above PubMatic’s. Its GAAP operating margin of 14.2% was also substantially higher than PubMatic’s 0.7%. 

The Trade Desk therefore remains the more profitable operation in both absolute and margin terms. The concern is not that it has suddenly become unprofitable. The concern is that its earnings momentum weakened while its revenue growth slowed. 

Customer retention remained above 95%, according to the company. That argues against a broad loss of customers, but it does not rule out lower spending by retained clients, changes in product usage, or an unfavorable client mix. Retention and spending are related but different measurements.

PubMatic’s Improvement Is Real but Starts From a Smaller Base

PubMatic’s adjusted EBITDA increased 38.0%, while its margin improved from approximately 20.0% to 25.0%.

Its calculated GAAP gross margin expanded from about 62.6% to 67.1%, an improvement of approximately 4.5 percentage points. GAAP operating income also improved from a $5.5 million loss in Q2 2025 to approximately $579,000 in Q2 2026.

PubMatic nevertheless reported a Q2 GAAP net loss of approximately $1.2 million. Positive operating income and positive net income are different thresholds, and the company had not yet crossed the latter in Q2.

The operating improvement is meaningful because revenue growth translated into faster adjusted EBITDA growth and positive GAAP operating income.

The scale of that operating income nevertheless matters. GAAP operating income of less than $1 million leaves limited room to absorb unexpected infrastructure costs, higher sales expenses, or weaker advertising demand.  PubMatic’s margin recovery is promising, but it is not yet as established as The Trade Desk’s profit base.

Management reported that connected television, mobile app, and emerging revenue represented approximately 60% of PubMatic’s Q2 revenue. Emerging revenue accounted for about 15% and increased approximately 100% from the previous year.

Those figures indicate that newer revenue streams are becoming more important to PubMatic. The Trade Desk’s Q2 earnings release did not provide an equivalent revenue breakdown, so the percentages should not be used for a direct channel-by-channel comparison between the companies.

AI Adoption Metrics Still Need Revenue Context 

PubMatic reported more than 80 campaigns and over 4,000 AI-powered deals through AgenticOS. The figures show increased platform activity, but they are not standalone revenue disclosures.

The company includes AI solutions within its broader emerging-revenue category, but its Q2 release did not separately quantify how much revenue or profit specifically came from AgenticOS.

The Trade Desk is also investing in AI-supported advertising tools, including agentic capabilities, but its Q2 release did not provide a standalone revenue figure for those products.

Investors should therefore treat AI campaign counts, deal counts and product launches as operating indicators—not as substitutes for reported revenue, customer spending or profit. Stronger evidence would include separately disclosed AI revenue, improved customer spending, higher retention or demonstrable margin benefits.

Stock-Based Compensation Remains Material 

The Trade Desk recorded $109.6 million in Q2 stock-based compensation, equal to approximately 15.3% of revenue. That was lower than $128.9 million in Q2 2025, while the company’s basic weighted-average share count declined approximately 4.5%. 

PubMatic recorded $8.3 million in stock-based compensation, equal to approximately 10.6% of revenue. Its basic weighted-average share count declined approximately 2.3% from the previous year. 

Declining weighted-average share counts are constructive for per-share economics, but they do not eliminate the cost of equity compensation. Investors should monitor diluted shares outstanding over several quarters because employee awards and repurchases can affect share counts at different times. 

Based on their June 30 balance sheets, neither company disclosed an immediate financing requirement. That balance-sheet snapshot cannot rule out future financing needs if operating conditions deteriorate or either company develops an extraordinary capital requirement.

The Trade Desk held approximately $1.49 billion in cash, cash equivalents, and short-term investments, providing a considerably larger absolute cushion. PubMatic ended Q2 with $137.5 million in cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities and reported no debt.

Liquidity reduces financing risk. It does not resolve slower growth, customer concentration, litigation exposure, or execution problems.

Q3 Guidance Extends the Momentum Difference 

The appropriate historical comparison for Q3 2026 guidance is Q3 2025, as it reflects the same seasonal period.

The Trade Desk generated $739.4 million in revenue and $317.5 million in adjusted EBITDA in Q3 2025. For Q3 2026, management guided to revenue of at least $650 million and adjusted EBITDA of approximately $160 million. 

PubMatic generated $68.0 million in revenue and $11.2 million in adjusted EBITDA in Q3 2025. Its Q3 2026 guidance calls for revenue of $75 million to $77 million and adjusted EBITDA of $17 million to $19 million.

The Trade Desk’s revenue guidance is a minimum rather than a range. Its final result could exceed $650 million, so the 12.1% comparison should not be treated as a forecast of the exact decline.

The adjusted EBITDA guide nevertheless signals substantially lower expected adjusted EBITDA than the company delivered in Q3 2025. The company did not provide corresponding GAAP net income guidance.

PubMatic’s ranges point toward continued revenue growth and expansion of adjusted EBITDA. Delivering within those ranges would strengthen the case that its Q2 improvement was not limited to one quarter.

The guidance therefore extends the current momentum difference, but it does not settle the longer-term comparison.

Four Risks Investors Should Separate

1. The Trade Desk’s immediate risk is execution

Management acknowledged that Q2 did not meet its standards and said it was taking action to strengthen execution, upgrade the platform, and sharpen its focus.

One disappointing quarter does not prove structural deterioration. Another substantial miss, weaker client spending, or continued margin compression would strengthen the case that the slowdown extends beyond a temporary execution problem.

2. PubMatic has explicit buyer-concentration and Google-related litigation risk

PubMatic’s filing states that The Trade Desk and Google’s Display & Video 360 account for a significant portion of impressions purchased through its platform. The filing also states that buyers are not required to meet any minimum spending levels on the platform.

PubMatic can therefore perform well with publishers and still be affected if a major demand-side platform changes its bidding activity, integrations, pricing, or supply-path strategy.

The same filing discloses PubMatic’s pending lawsuit against Google. PubMatic describes Google as both a major partner and competitor and warns that potential retaliatory actions could affect platform access, commercial terms, or revenue. Those are PubMatic’s disclosed litigation risks; this analysis does not conclude the merits of the underlying allegations.

The Trade Desk separately discloses risks from losing agencies, advertisers, or holding-company clients. The two companies do not report concentration on a directly comparable basis, so the precise relative degree of concentration cannot be established from the available disclosures.

3. PubMatic still needs to prove that its margins can scale

PubMatic’s Q2 margin improvement was substantial, but GAAP operating income remained below $1 million, and the company still recorded a GAAP net loss.

Sustained double-digit revenue growth, continued gross margin strength, consistent positive GAAP operating income, and eventual GAAP net profitability would provide stronger evidence that the business has reached a durable profitability inflection.

4. Both companies face industry-level pressure

Advertising budgets remain sensitive to economic conditions and individual advertisers’ spending decisions. Privacy restrictions, changes to digital identifiers and competition from closed advertising platforms can also affect independent ad-tech companies.

The Trade Desk has greater scale and more established profitability. PubMatic’s filing explicitly identifies dependence on a limited number of major DSP buyers. Neither business is insulated from changes in the overall advertising market.

What Retail Investors Should Watch Next

For The Trade Desk, the critical Q3 indicators are:

• Revenue relative to the $650 million minimum.
• Adjusted EBITDA relative to approximately $160 million.
• Customer retention together with commentary about spending by retained clients.
• Evidence that management’s execution changes are improving results.
• Whether adjusted EBITDA and GAAP operating margins stabilize.

For PubMatic, investors should monitor:

• Revenue relative to the $75 million to $77 million range.
• Adjusted EBITDA relative to the $17 million to $19 million range.
• Whether GAAP operating income remains positive and whether the company approaches GAAP net profitability.
• Growth in CTV, mobile-app and emerging revenue.
• Changes in demand from major DSP buyers.
• Material developments involving its relationship and litigation with Google.
• Evidence that AgenticOS adoption is translating into measurable revenue.

Guidance beats or misses should not be considered in isolation. Revenue quality, margins, customer concentration, litigation exposure, and the outlook for the following quarter will help determine whether the current momentum continues.

The Bottom Line

On the operating measures examined here, The Trade Desk remains the stronger business in absolute revenue, profitability, liquidity, and established scale. PubMatic delivered stronger Q2 results relative to prior guidance and currently has more favorable near-term year-over-year guidance comparisons.

Those conclusions are not contradictory.

TTD investors need evidence that the company can stabilize revenue growth and margins after missing its Q2 targets. PUBM investors need evidence that its reacceleration can withstand buyer concentration and Google-related litigation risk while translating into sustained positive GAAP operating income and, ultimately, GAAP net profitability.

The operating comparison does not establish which stock is cheaper. A reliable valuation conclusion would require consistent trailing-period earnings or cash-flow measures, enterprise values, and assumptions about future growth—not a comparison between market capitalization and a single quarter’s results.

For Q3, The Trade Desk’s test is stabilization. PubMatic’s test is durability. Until both companies report again, that is the clearest conclusion supported by the available evidence.

Methodology: All Q2 performance comparisons use the three months ended June 30, 2026, against the same quarter of 2025. Q2 actual-versus-guidance comparisons use forecasts issued specifically for Q2 2026. Q3 guidance is compared only with Q3 2025, the matching seasonal quarter. Calculated figures use exact company-reported amounts where available and may differ from calculations based on displayed rounded figures. Annual filings are used solely to explain continuing business models, accounting treatment and structural risks, including disclosed litigation—not to compare annual performance with quarterly results.

This analysis is provided for informational purposes and is not personalized investment advice.