Haus vs. Northbeam

They measure marketing differently, so it's less about which one wins than which method fits your question. Haus runs incrementality and geo-lift experiments — buyers praise its rigorous, finance-credible causal testing, strategic "very smart" reps who help plan tests, and insight that reshapes budget allocation — but flag it as a "black box" on how it calculates, high cost that doesn't fit seasonal usage, and a cumbersome onboarding. Northbeam does always-on multi-touch attribution — buyers praise its transparent, non-black-box "source of truth" and cross-channel integration — but flag a complex onboarding, weak non-digital coverage, and the category's data-reconciliation issue. For a team that wants causal proof of what's incremental and a strategic partner to run tests, buyers lean Haus; for a team that wants transparent, always-on attribution across channels, they lean Northbeam. Notably, some buyers run both — Haus for periodic incrementality tests, Northbeam for ongoing attribution.

The difference is the measurement method. Haus is an incrementality and geo-lift experimentation platform — it runs controlled tests to measure the causal, incremental impact of spend, which buyers value for finance-credible proof and strategic support, with the trade of opacity in how it calculates ("black box"), high cost relative to sporadic usage, and a cumbersome onboarding. Northbeam is an always-on multi-touch attribution platform — it tracks and attributes conversions across channels continuously, which buyers value for transparency and cross-channel integration, with the trade of a complex onboarding, weak offline coverage, and data that doesn't fully reconcile. Haus answers "is this spend truly incremental?" through experiments; Northbeam answers "where are conversions coming from?" continuously. They're complementary as much as competitive, which is why some buyers run both.

Some buyers do run both, because they answer different questions. Haus runs incrementality experiments that prove, causally, whether spend is driving incremental results — useful for big budget-allocation decisions and for convincing finance. Northbeam runs always-on multi-touch attribution that tells you, day to day, where conversions are coming from across channels. A team that wants both the periodic causal proof and the continuous cross-channel view may run Haus for lift tests and Northbeam for ongoing attribution, as some buyers in the corpus do. But it's not required: a team focused on causal, experiment-based measurement can run Haus alone, and a team that wants transparent always-on attribution can run Northbeam alone. Decide whether your priority is causal proof, continuous attribution, or both — and weigh the combined cost, since neither is cheap.

Transparency is where Northbeam has the clearer edge in the interviews. Northbeam is specifically praised as a transparent "source of truth" that isn't a "black box" — buyers value being able to see how the attribution is built. Haus, by contrast, draws a black-box criticism: a buyer described its calculations as opaque and secretive, which left them skeptical of the results. That's partly inherent to the method — incrementality models are harder to fully expose than attribution paths — but it's a real difference buyers feel. So if seeing how the number is constructed matters most, buyers lean Northbeam; if you want causal, experiment-based proof and will accept some model opacity for it, Haus is the trade. Either way, buyers validate measurement against their own results rather than trusting one tool as gospel.