LoomaScale and Adspirer are the same kind of product. Both are MCP servers: they hand ChatGPT or Claude real access to your ad accounts, so the assistant reads yesterday's spend and makes changes instead of giving advice about a screenshot you pasted. Both connect over OAuth, both create campaigns paused, and the price ladders are close enough that price is not what decides this.
Two things do. What counts as one task on your bill, and how far the Google Ads coverage actually goes.
What the two have in common
Worth saying plainly before the differences, because the overlap is real.
- OAuth, never a password. You grant access from Google's own screen and revoke it there.
- Everything is created paused. Nothing either product builds starts spending on its own.
- Both work in ChatGPT and in Claude. Neither locks you to one assistant.
- Both have a free plan and neither takes a percentage of your ad spend.
If you are choosing between them, you are not choosing between safe and unsafe. You are choosing between two designs.
What counts as one task
This is the difference you will feel every month.
Adspirer meters tool calls. Their own documentation puts it plainly: each tool invocation counts as 1 call, whatever the platform or the client.
LoomaScale meters messages. A task is one request you send the assistant, not one tool call it makes to answer you. Everything the agent calls while answering a single message bills once — the grouping window is two minutes, which is longer than any agent takes to work through one answer. The same definition is written into our terms and our refund policy, not just the marketing page.
That sounds like an accounting detail until you watch an agent work. A single question — where am I wasting money — makes it list campaigns, pull insights, pull the search terms report, and then propose negatives. Four calls before you get a sentence back.
The follow-up costs the same again. So does the one after that, and the follow-up is where the real work happens: no, exclude the branded ones; now show me the same thing for last quarter.
Per-call metering quietly asks you to ration the agent's curiosity — to tell it to look at less so the audit stays cheap. That is exactly backwards. Checking what you have left is free either way on LoomaScale: the quota tool does not consume a task.
Six platforms, or two done deep
Adspirer covers six ad platforms — Google, Meta, LinkedIn, TikTok, Amazon and ChatGPT Ads. LoomaScale covers two: Google Ads and Meta Ads.
If your spend is genuinely spread across three or more networks, breadth is the thing to buy, and this comparison ends here. Go buy breadth.
The rest of this is for the reader whose Google Ads account is the account that matters. There, 42 tools go somewhere specific:
- Sitelinks as a full set of operations. List, create, update and remove. Update rewrites the text or the destination in place, so the sitelink keeps its id and its performance history. Products that only add and unlink make you delete and rebuild, which throws the history away for a typo fix.
- Performance Max split into four tools. Asset group text, images and logos and YouTube video, search themes, and campaign-level brand assets are separate calls — so the agent can rewrite a headline without touching your creative.
- Conversion actions you can actually inspect. Counting type, attribution model, primary flag, click-through and view-through windows, all readable and most of them writable. With the honest caveat: conversions imported from GA4 are immutable through the Google Ads API. That setting lives in GA4 and no connector can change it. A tool that pretends otherwise fails at the moment you need it.
- The boring diagnostics that answer "why is nothing serving". A billing check that looks at account status, billing setup approval and exhausted account budgets, and a pacing check that finds enabled campaigns delivering nothing today.
- Insights broken out by geography and by audience, plus keyword research with monthly volume, competition and top-of-page bid estimates.
Breadth and depth are a real trade, not a marketing one. Six platforms is six API surfaces to keep current; two is a smaller promise kept closer to the metal.
The guardrails are tools, not promises
Guardrails written in a landing page are worth nothing. These are in the tool definitions:
- Everything created — Search campaigns, Performance Max campaigns, ad groups, ads — lands paused.
- Activating or resuming anything re-checks the campaign budget against your own daily cap first.
- The budget tool refuses budgets shared across several campaigns rather than moving money you did not mean to move.
- The account-level budget tool will raise a spending limit but will not set it to unlimited.
- Read and write are separate OAuth scopes. You can connect read-only, let the assistant audit and diagnose for a month, and grant write access when you have decided you trust it. More on vetting an MCP server.
The checks are written down before they run
Here is the part nobody else publishes. LoomaScale ships a library of standing checks — the recurring loop of a real account rather than one-off questions. Stop waste weekly. Check pacing daily. Move budget to winners weekly. Keep automation healthy. Find growth. Confirm last week's changes did not cost anything.
Two things make it more than a list of prompts.
Each check states its own cadence. Not one frequency picked for everything: pacing is a daily glance, reallocation is a weekly decision, and the card says which.
Each check names the tools it will call before you run it. You can read exactly what the agent is about to touch — which reads, which writes — instead of finding out afterwards. And the waste check carries a dollar threshold you set per account, because twenty dollars is generous at an $8 CPA and meaningless at $300.
The daily one, in full:
Check budget pacing across all my active Google Ads campaigns. Compare month-to-date spend, today's delivery, current daily budgets and performance. Flag campaigns constrained by budget while meeting their CPA or ROAS goals, and campaigns consistently failing to use the budget they already have. Tell me what needs attention and why. Do not make any changes. If everything is pacing normally, say so rather than finding something to report.
Being straight about the limits: LoomaScale runs no scheduler and pushes you nothing. You run these yourself, or you save one as a scheduled Task in ChatGPT and it runs without you. Claude has no scheduler, so there it is a habit. The claim is not that we watch your account while you sleep — it is that the checks are written, versioned and cheap to run, because each one is a single message.
The free tier is an audit, not a trial
Fifteen tasks a month, free, on both sides. Under message metering, fifteen tasks is fifteen real questions with all the tool calls each of them needs — not fifteen glances.
And the free path has a deliverable at the end of it rather than a countdown: connect Google Ads and the assistant reports the three findings costing you the most. If you want to run that yourself first, the full 30-minute audit is seven checkpoints with the prompts and the thresholds.
We run our own ads through it
Every Google Ads campaign LoomaScale runs was created from ChatGPT through the same connector you would be buying — three campaigns, one per language, from a single prompt, with the numbers published. The case study is here, including the four things the create tool deliberately leaves for a human.
Which one to pick
- Spend across three or more networks? Buy breadth. Adspirer covers more platforms than we do and says so accurately.
- Google Ads is the account that decides your quarter? Depth wins: in-place edits that keep their history, Performance Max broken into the pieces you actually change, and diagnostics for the days nothing serves.
- Do you ask follow-up questions? Then how a task is counted matters more than the sticker price, and one message per task is the only version of that which does not punish you for digging.
Connecting takes a few clicks either way — ChatGPT or Claude — and the first audit costs you nothing.