Google vs. Microsoft: Performance Max Compared

For businesses navigating the world of digital advertising, Performance Max (PMax) campaigns represent the cutting edge of AI-driven marketing, offering a unified approach to creative management and audience targeting. Both Google and Microsoft provide this campaign type, yet their implementations and feature sets vary considerably. Understanding these distinctions helps advertisers deploy budgets more effectively and achieve superior results.

Several core principles apply to PMax campaigns regardless of the platform. Asset groups take the place of traditional ad groups, housing a collection of images, headlines, and audience signals. Since budget is managed at the campaign level, the system automatically distributes spending across asset groups. If you need to prioritize specific audiences or creatives, it’s better to set up separate campaigns rather than relying on multiple asset groups within one.

Automation lies at the heart of PMax. Both platforms require the use of Maximize Conversions or Maximize Conversion Value bidding strategies, making accurate conversion tracking essential. For stable performance, aim for at least 30 conversions over a 30-day period. Be aware that significant changes, like adjusting your bid strategy or pausing a campaign, can initiate new learning phases that temporarily affect performance.

Your campaign goals must align with actual business objectives. Setting an unrealistically low target for return on ad spend won’t increase volume, it will simply lower your returns. Both Google and Microsoft offer insights from search themes and keywordless queries. Google supports up to 10,000 negative keywords per campaign, while Microsoft’s self-serve negative keyword feature was still in pilot testing as of late 2025. Until it’s fully released, advertisers can contact support to add negatives manually.

PMax ads compete using ad rank, similar to standard search campaigns. Both platforms also provide access to AI-driven ad placements, though Microsoft has more established performance in this area due to its longer track record.

When it comes to Google’s PMax, the platform delivers extensive channel-level reporting. Advertisers can see exactly how their budget is divided across Search, Display, YouTube, and other networks. This level of transparency supports smarter decisions about supporting campaign types. Google PMax also supports video assets, enabling placements on YouTube and the Display network, a major advantage for brands focused on visual storytelling.

Google provides fully developed features for brand inclusion and exclusion, as well as new customer acquisition goals. Advertisers can create up to 100 PMax campaigns per account and apply up to 50 search themes per campaign. Recent updates include AI-generated creatives that align with brand guidelines, simplifying asset production. Because Google often directs more spend to visual channels like YouTube and Display, cost-per-click rates can be lower compared to Microsoft’s search-heavy inventory mix.

Microsoft’s PMax brings its own set of advantages, especially for B2B marketers. The platform permits up to 300 PMax campaigns per account, offering greater structural flexibility. A unique feature is impression-based remarketing, which allows audiences to be built from ad views rather than clicks. Advertisers can adjust bids or exclude these audiences to sharpen campaign focus.

Integration with LinkedIn profile data, including job function, industry, and company size, makes Microsoft PMax particularly powerful for B2B lead generation. Microsoft also has a longer history with AI placement inventory and reports consistently strong results. Search Themes here serve as helpful signals to the algorithm without restricting reach, and advertisers can apply up to 25 per campaign.

To make the most of both platforms, treat PMax as a tool for incremental growth rather than a replacement for proven search campaigns. Use it to connect with new audiences beyond traditional keyword targeting. Structure is critical: if you’re targeting different personas or goals, create separate campaigns. Avoid setting ROAS targets that differ by more than 40–50% within a single campaign.

Creative variety matters on both platforms. With Google, emphasize video to capture YouTube viewers. On Microsoft, leverage LinkedIn signals and impression-based remarketing for high-quality B2B prospecting. Budget allocation should reflect each platform’s inventory tendencies, Google often leans toward Display and YouTube, while Microsoft concentrates on Search and LinkedIn, which may mean higher CPCs but also higher-quality conversions.

Ultimately, Google and Microsoft PMax campaigns share a common foundation but excel in different areas. Google stands out for creative automation and reporting transparency, while Microsoft offers superior B2B targeting and innovative remarketing options. Rather than choosing one over the other, successful advertisers often use both, combining each platform’s unique strengths to meet diverse marketing objectives.

(Source: Search Engine Land)