Northbeam goes deep on measurement. Cresva embeds measurement inside a workforce.
Both invest in attribution. Northbeam's methodology stack is industry-leading. Cresva embeds the same measurement inside a coordinated workforce that also runs forecasting, scenario testing, and recap delivery.
Cresva
NorthbeamMeasurement depth vs. workforce architecture.
Northbeam and Cresva both invest in attribution. The architectural difference is shape: Northbeam stacks measurement methods (MTA, MMM, incrementality, Apex) as the architectural primary; Cresva embeds the same measurement primitives inside a coordinated workforce that also forecasts, tests, and delivers recaps.
Measurement methodology as the architectural primary
Northbeam positions itself as the industry leader in marketing attribution. The architecture stacks Multi-Touch Attribution, Media Mix Modeling, deterministic view-through measurement, and Apex (which sends performance data back to ad-platform algorithms). (Per their marketing.)
Measurement inside a workforce that also acts
Cresva's foundation is a memory layer shared across seven agents. Parker handles attribution, Felix handles forecasting, Sam handles scenario testing, Dex handles delivery. The same measurement signals flow through the same workforce that reallocates budget and ships the recap.
How each handles specific capabilities.
Stacked measurement methods as the architectural primary: MTA, MMM, incrementality, Apex.
(per their marketing)Memory layer shared across 7 agents; measurement signals feed forecasting, testing, and recap delivery in the same workforce.
MayaMulti-touch attribution with first-party data; positioned as industry leader in marketing attribution.
(per their marketing)Parker reconciles platform self-claim against extended-window attribution and ties results to the P&L.
ParkerClicks + Deterministic Views, marketed as the world's first deterministic view-through attribution model for video reach campaigns.
(per their marketing)Cresva does not match Northbeam's deterministic view-through depth. View-through signals flow through Parker's reconciled attribution view, not as a separately named methodology.
ParkerMMM+ marketed as high-speed MMM for faster, more accurate spend decisions; forecasting on top of the marketing mix.
(per their marketing)Felix runs Prophet/ARIMA forecasts with confidence intervals inside the same workforce that runs reallocations.
FelixNorthbeam Apex sends performance data back to ad-platform algorithms to improve delivery.
(per their marketing)Cresva does not push signals back to ad-platform algorithms. Decisions are surfaced for human approval and executed via Sam's playbooks.
SamTiered, with higher tiers gated by ad-spend thresholds; specific pricing via their pricing page.
Source ↗Pilot-based, contact for full pricing.
Acknowledged strengths. Where Northbeam earns its place.
Sourced to their public marketing.
Industry-leading attribution methodology
Northbeam positions itself as the industry leader in marketing attribution; depth across MTA and MMM+ is the core of the platform.
per their marketingDeterministic view-through attribution
Marketed as the world's first deterministic view-through attribution model for measuring video-based reach.
per their marketingApex feedback loop into ad platforms
Apex sends performance data directly to ad-platform algorithms for improved delivery.
per their marketingMethodology rigor
Stack of measurement methods sits at the center of the product; reduces wasted spend by separating demand-creation from overtargeting.
per their marketingArchitectural decisions that earn the difference.
Measurement depth alone is one shape. Cresva's shape is measurement inside a workforce that also forecasts, tests, and delivers.
Measurement as workforce output
Parker's attribution and Felix's forecasts feed into the same memory layer Sam reads from when running scenarios.
ParkerForecasting integrated with action
Felix's forecasts are not a separate report; they shape the budget-reallocation playbooks Sam queues for approval.
FelixMemory layer that compounds methodology insights
Each attribution call, each scenario outcome, each recap signal is written back to the memory layer the next decision reads from.
MayaDay-shaped delivery cadence
Morning brief, midday actions, end-of-day recap. The measurement signal lands inside a delivery rhythm, not a dashboard.
DexWhich fits your shape.
Deterministic view-through attribution is mission-critical
Their published methodology is the deepest in the category for video reach.
You want signals piped back to ad-platform algorithms
Apex is built specifically for that ad-platform feedback loop.
Methodology depth is the primary purchase criterion
MTA + MMM+ stacked together is the architectural strength.
Your team has dedicated analysts to interpret the methods
Methodology depth rewards analyst-grade interpretation.
You want measurement inside a workforce, not as a stack
Forecasting, attribution, testing, creative, recap in one team.
Cross-agent context sharing matters more than method depth
Parker's reconciled view feeds Sam's scenarios feeds Dex's recap.
You want decisions delivered, not just measured
Day-shaped cadence: brief, actions, recap. Not a dashboard to query.
Memory that compounds is your higher-priority architecture
Pattern recognition shows up in next quarter's forecast, not last quarter's report.
Questions about Cresva vs Northbeam
Both Northbeam and Cresva measure attribution. What's actually different?
Architecture, not whether attribution is present. Northbeam's architecture stacks measurement methods (MTA, MMM+, view-through, Apex) as the primary. Cresva's architecture embeds attribution inside a workforce where Parker's reconciled view feeds Sam's scenario tests, Felix's forecasts, and Dex's recap delivery. Same primitive, different shape.
Does Cresva match Northbeam's view-through attribution depth?
No. Northbeam markets the world's first deterministic view-through attribution model for video reach; that depth is genuinely category-leading. Cresva's view-through signals flow through Parker's reconciled attribution view rather than as a separately named methodology. If deterministic view-through is mission-critical, Northbeam's architecture serves that need directly.
Does Cresva push signals back to ad-platform algorithms like Apex?
No. Apex is purpose-built for that feedback loop and is one of Northbeam's distinctive strengths. Cresva surfaces decisions for human approval and executes via Sam's playbooks, not via ad-platform feedback. If automated ad-platform optimization through algorithm feedback is your priority, Apex fits that need directly.
When should I choose Northbeam over Cresva?
If methodology depth is the primary purchase criterion, if deterministic view-through is mission-critical, if Apex's ad-platform feedback loop is core to your optimization workflow, or if you have dedicated analysts to interpret the methods, Northbeam's architecture serves those needs directly.
What does the Cresva pilot look like?
14-day pilot structure. First reconciled view inside 48 hours after OAuth. Full compounding effect rolls in across the pilot. Architecture target: exact onboarding speed depends on data history and integration count.
Other competitors we compare to.
See the workforce architecture on a single brand account.
If the workforce architecture earns its place inside the 14-day pilot, scale across the portfolio. If your team is better served by Northbeam's measurement-stack architecture, we'll say so.