Price comparisons in this market usually fail before they start, because the options do not share a unit. An agency bills a share of what you spend; software bills by the size of your account; connectors bill flat; Google bills nothing and takes alignment instead. Compare the shapes first — the shape, not the sticker, decides what you pay at your spend level and what happens to the bill as you grow.
The answer first: four price shapes
| Shape | Who sells it | The bill | How it scales with spend |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percent of spend / retainer | Agencies | A share of monthly ad spend, or a fixed retainer, often with minimums and setup fees | Linearly — grow spend, grow fee |
| Spend-tiered subscription | PPC suites (Optmyzr, Opteo) | A software fee that steps up with managed spend | In steps — tier jumps as accounts grow |
| Flat subscription | MCP connectors (AdCopilot) | A fixed fee, plus the AI client you already pay for | It doesn't — flat at any spend |
| Free, built in | Google (Ads Advisor, recommendations) | Nothing on an invoice | Never bills — and never leaves Google's side |
Agencies: the percent-of-spend shape, sourced
Published industry pricing puts typical agency management fees between ten and twenty percent of monthly ad spend — WebFX's PPC pricing page lists its own fees in the twelve-to-twenty-percent range plus a setup fee, and HawkSEM's survey of fee models maps the wider market from roughly ten to thirty percent, with retainers and minimums common at lower spends.
The shape's logic: you are buying hours and judgment, and bigger accounts need more of both. Its sting: the fee grows with spend even in months when the work did not, and minimums make small accounts expensive relative to their budgets. What the fee genuinely includes — strategy, accountability, a human who answers the phone — is exactly what tools do not sell, which is why the agency comparison treats it as a different purchase, not a rip-off.
PPC software: spend-tiered, and where it stings
The established suites price as software subscriptions tiered by managed spend — manage more, pay more, with plan gates on features and account counts. For agencies running many accounts on scheduled rules, the fee maps to genuine value. The sting arrives at the tier boundaries: growth in your clients' budgets raises your software bill without changing what the software does. The Optmyzr comparison covers when that trade is worth it and when it is paying for scheduling you could prompt.
Connectors: flat fee, plus the AI subscription you already pay
The connector shape has two parts, and honesty requires naming both. The connector itself — AdCopilot — is a flat subscription: the fee does not read your spend or your growth. It scales on one axis only — how many Google Ads accounts you point it at, never on what you spend through them. On top sits the AI client subscription (Claude, ChatGPT) that most buyers of this category already pay for other work; if you would not otherwise carry it, it belongs in your total.
What the flat shape buys structurally: cost that stays put while spend grows, which at agency-scale budgets is the entire argument. What it does not buy: the judgment and hours an agency includes — the connector assumes you or your team supply those.
AdCopilot's own entry point is a trial: seven days for a new workspace, full toolset, no card. Paid pricing is a flat monthly or yearly subscription sized by the number of Google Ads accounts it covers — the exact numbers, maintained in one place so they cannot drift, are published on the pricing page.
The free layer: what Google gives away, and why
Google's AI — recommendations, auto-apply, and the Gemini-powered Ads Advisor rolling out since late 2025 — costs nothing because it is not the product; your spend is. That is not cynicism, it is alignment accounting: advice generated inside the platform inherits the platform's preferences, and "raise budgets, broaden targeting, trust automation" appears in its suggestions more often than "cut waste". Use the free layer — it is genuinely capable — and price the second opinion separately.
Total cost of ownership: how the shapes behave as spend grows
Run the shapes across three spend levels and the pattern is mechanical:
- Small budgets. Agency minimums loom largest — the fee can rival the media. Software tiers are modest; the flat connector plus an AI plan is usually the cheapest managed option, with Google's free layer the floor.
- Mid budgets. The percent-of-spend fee becomes a serious line item. Software steps a tier or two. The flat shape has not moved — this is where it starts winning arguments.
- Agency-scale spend. Percent-of-spend is now a salary; spend-tiered software is a real invoice; the flat connector still has not moved. The remaining question is not price but labour: who supplies the judgment — which is the best-tool-per-job question, not a pricing one.
If the flat shape fits your situation, testing it costs the smallest number on this page: nothing for seven days for a new workspace, no card — and the shape of your own total cost becomes visible from the inside.