Ad platforms like to talk about reach, automation, and efficiency. What they rarely talk about is how much of that engagement was never real to begin with.

Our 2026 Global Invalid Traffic report analyzed 2.7 billion clicks across six major ad platforms, using unprotected, monitor-only campaigns to capture the IVT that slips past native platform filters today.

We’ll be discussing the Invalid Traffic (IVT) by Ad Platform section of the report in this blog - you can get your copy of the full report here for a more in-depth analysis of IVT by ad platform, as well as a detailed look at IVT by country, IVT by Google campaign type, IVT by Industry, and much more. 

Alternatively, watch our video rundown of the key findings from the report here: 

The results show a stark imbalance. Some platforms expose advertisers to far more invalid traffic than others, and the cost differences are anything but theoretical.

Here’s how invalid traffic really stacks up by ad platform.

Nearly 1 in 4 ad clicks on TikTok are fraudulent

TikTok recorded the highest average invalid traffic rate in the dataset at 24.20%.

That means almost one in four ad clicks didn’t come from a genuine user with real intent.

For a platform still scaling its ad infrastructure, this isn’t entirely surprising. TikTok hasn’t faced the decades of scrutiny, lawsuits, and advertiser pressure that forced older platforms like Google and Meta to somewhat harden their fraud protection early.

Less mature anti-fraud systems make TikTok an attractive target for bot farms, automation tools, and affiliate arbitrage schemes designed to inflate engagement. High volumes, low friction, and fast-moving inventory create ideal conditions for invalid activity to blend in.

If you’re running performance spend on TikTok, reach numbers alone can be deeply misleading.

LinkedIn’s problem is cost, not just volume

LinkedIn follows closely with an average IVT rate of 19.88%.

On paper, that’s lower than TikTok. In practice, the financial impact can be even worse.

LinkedIn’s CPCs are typically much higher than other platforms. So when nearly one in five clicks is invalid, the cost of waste escalates quickly.

Granular job title and company targeting also attract a specific type of abuse: coordinated click manipulation and lead form spam aimed at B2B advertisers with large budgets.

The platform continues to battle fake profiles, scraping operations, and engagement bots that mimic real users convincingly enough to pass initial checks. LinkedIn removes millions of fake accounts at registration, but more sophisticated automation increasingly interacts with ads before detection kicks in.

X still struggles with automation

X / Twitter recorded an average IVT rate of 12.79%.

Its open network structure makes it easier for automated accounts to blend in with genuine users. As a result, advertisers often report inconsistent traffic quality and weaker downstream performance compared to platforms with stronger identity controls.

While cheaper CPCs can soften the blow, invalid traffic still distorts optimisation signals and conversion data, particularly for campaigns optimised around engagement or clicks.

Bing sits in the middle, with structural gaps

Bing recorded a 10.32% invalid traffic rate.

The platform has improved its fraud detection over time, but advertisers still have less control over placements and exclusions than they do in Google Ads. Limited transparency around search partners allows low-quality traffic to leak into campaigns more easily.

Microsoft continues to invest in its advertising infrastructure, and we expect this gap to narrow. For now, Bing requires closer monitoring than many teams assume.

Meta looks moderate, but context matters

Meta platforms recorded an average IVT rate of 8.20%.

That may appear reasonable compared to TikTok or LinkedIn, but it needs context. Meta is currently facing a Supreme Court case over allegedly inflated reach metrics, highlighting the broader issue of fake users across social platforms.

Many bots on Meta are designed to behave like legitimate users, scrolling, engaging, and clicking in ways that are hard to distinguish without post-click analysis. Social platforms tend to focus on removing fake accounts after detection, rather than preventing the invalid behaviour that happens before they’re caught.

Google remains the cleanest, but far from immune

Google recorded the lowest average IVT rate in the dataset at 7.57%.

This reflects years of pressure from advertisers, regulators, and litigation that forced Google to invest heavily in fraud detection. Search inventory in particular benefits from strong intent signals and tighter controls.

But “lowest” doesn’t mean “clean”.

Google’s vast Display and Video Partner networks remain easy targets for invalid activity, and campaign types that widen reach, such as Performance Max, inherit the risk profiles of higher-IVT inventory. Even with Google’s stronger defences, invalid traffic is still a meaningful drag on performance at scale.

Why platforms differ so much

The gap between platforms isn’t random. It’s driven by how they manage user identity, placement control, and automated engagement.

Younger platforms with rapid growth tend to prioritise scale over scrutiny. Open networks make automation easier to hide. High-CPC environments attract more aggressive fraud because the payoff is higher.

What’s consistent is this: every platform filters some invalid traffic, but none catch it all. The most obvious fraud might get refunded. The “soft invalids” rarely do.

These soft invalid clicks behave convincingly enough to slip through detection, wasting budget and corrupting the signals that bidding algorithms rely on.

The takeaway for paid media professionals

Platform choice isn’t just about audience and CPMs. It’s a traffic quality decision.

A 24% IVT rate versus an 8% rate changes how you should interpret performance data, set budgets, and evaluate ROI. At scale, it can be the difference between growth and hidden stagnation.

TikTok’s scale is powerful, but its IVT exposure is real. LinkedIn’s precision comes with a high cost of waste. Google remains the safest route to scale, but even there, automation widens the net for invalid activity.

If you’re optimizing purely on platform-reported metrics, you’re flying blind to a growing part of the problem. Cleaner traffic leads to cleaner attribution. Cleaner attribution leads to better decisions.

And in situations where nearly one in four clicks might be fake, visibility stops being a nice-to-have. It becomes table stakes.

Download your copy of the 2026 Global Invalid Traffic Report here to learn where your ad budget is most at risk - and what you can do right now to protect your ad spend efficiency.