| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Paid | Free |
| Capabilities | 14 decomposed | 9 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Deploys 50+ specialized AI agents that asynchronously analyze Google Ads account structure, historical performance metrics, and campaign data to generate prioritized optimization recommendations. Agents operate on fixed schedules (daily/weekly/monthly) and are trained on best practices from top Google Ads experts, though the specific LLM model, training mechanism (fine-tuning vs. RAG vs. prompt engineering), and agent specialization taxonomy remain undisclosed. Architecture ingests account data via OAuth-secured Google Ads API read access, segments analysis across 5 documented agent categories (campaign creation, traffic expansion, traffic optimization, ad copy improvement, landing page alignment), and outputs structured recommendation lists that users review before approval.
Unique: Uses 50+ specialized agents (vs. single monolithic model) with claimed training on top Google Ads expert practices, though training mechanism (fine-tuning, RAG, prompt injection) is undisclosed. Differentiates from generic LLM-based tools by domain-specific agent decomposition, but lacks transparency on how specialization is achieved or validated.
vs alternatives: Deeper specialization than single-model tools like ChatGPT for Google Ads, but less transparent and auditable than rule-based optimization engines; lacks real-time execution capability of native Google Ads automation.
Allows users to define execution scope (specific accounts, campaigns, or ad groups), frequency (daily/weekly/monthly), and custom rules (tone, naming conventions, performance thresholds, custom instructions) that constrain agent recommendations. The system applies these constraints during agent execution to filter and tailor recommendations to user preferences, reducing irrelevant suggestions. Constraints are stored per-account and persist across recommendation cycles, enabling consistent optimization philosophy across portfolios.
Unique: Implements constraint-based filtering at agent execution time rather than post-hoc filtering of recommendations, allowing agents to be 'aware' of rules during generation. However, the architecture for constraint propagation to individual agents is undisclosed.
vs alternatives: More flexible than fixed templates but less powerful than full conditional automation; lacks the real-time rule engine of native Google Ads Smart Bidding or third-party optimization platforms.
Enables agencies and multi-account advertisers to manage multiple Google Ads accounts within a single Blobr workspace with per-account data isolation, separate recommendation queues, and account-specific constraints. Each account has its own agent execution schedule, custom rules, and recommendation history. The architecture segregates data between accounts at the database level (claimed in FAQ), preventing cross-account data leakage. Users can switch between accounts in the UI and view aggregated metrics across portfolio (aggregation methodology unknown).
Unique: Implements multi-tenant architecture with per-account data isolation and separate agent execution queues, but the database schema, isolation mechanism, and cross-account optimization prevention are undisclosed. Differentiates from single-account tools by portfolio support, but lacks cross-account optimization and budget allocation.
vs alternatives: More scalable for agencies than single-account tools, but less integrated than native Google Ads Manager Accounts; comparable to other agency-focused tools (Optmyzr, Marin Software) in multi-account support.
Ranks generated recommendations by estimated impact (methodology unknown) and displays them in a prioritized list in the UI. The system estimates impact metrics such as traffic increase, cost savings, or conversion rate improvement, though the calculation methodology, data sources, and confidence intervals are undisclosed. Users can sort recommendations by impact, confidence, or category, and filter by scope (account, campaign, ad group). The prioritization algorithm may use historical performance data, industry benchmarks, or machine learning models, but this is not documented.
Unique: Implements impact-based prioritization of recommendations, but the underlying estimation model (historical extrapolation, industry benchmarks, ML-based prediction) is undisclosed. Differentiates from unranked recommendation lists by providing business impact context, but lacks transparency on estimation methodology and confidence intervals.
vs alternatives: More actionable than unranked recommendations, but less rigorous than A/B testing frameworks; comparable to other recommendation engines (Netflix, Amazon) in prioritization approach but without disclosed algorithms.
Provides a web-based UI where users can view, edit, and approve recommendations before pushing them to Google Ads. Users can modify recommendation details (keywords, ad copy, budgets, etc.), add notes, group recommendations into batches, and push approved changes to Google Ads with a single click. The UI supports bulk selection, filtering, and sorting of recommendations. The underlying edit validation (e.g., character limits, keyword format) and conflict detection (e.g., duplicate keywords) are undisclosed.
Unique: Implements editable recommendation UI with batch approval workflow, but the underlying validation, conflict detection, and error handling are undisclosed. Differentiates from read-only recommendation systems by allowing customization, but lacks collaboration features and rollback capability.
vs alternatives: More flexible than automated-only systems but less integrated than native Google Ads interface; comparable to other marketing automation UIs (Marketo, HubSpot) in workflow design.
Offers a 7-day free trial with full access to all Blobr features (all agents, all integrations, all accounts) without requiring a credit card. The trial enables users to experience the full product, generate recommendations, and push changes to Google Ads before committing to a paid plan. After 7 days, the account is automatically downgraded to a free tier (features unknown) or requires payment. The trial scope (all features, limited accounts, limited recommendations) is not explicitly stated but implied to be full-feature.
Unique: Implements no-credit-card trial with full feature access, reducing friction for new users but potentially increasing churn if trial period is too short to demonstrate value. Differentiates from credit-card-required trials by lowering commitment barrier, but 7-day window may be insufficient for weekly/monthly agent execution cycles.
vs alternatives: More user-friendly than credit-card-required trials, but shorter than typical SaaS trials (14-30 days); comparable to other freemium tools (Slack, Figma) in trial approach.
Establishes secure OAuth 2.0 connection to Google Ads accounts, enabling Blobr to read account structure (campaigns, ad groups, keywords, audiences, budgets) and historical performance metrics, then write approved recommendations back to Google Ads via API. The integration uses Google's official Ads API (version undisclosed) and implements multi-tenant data segregation to isolate recommendations between accounts. Write operations are gated behind user approval — agents generate recommendations but cannot execute changes autonomously.
Unique: Implements OAuth-secured multi-tenant architecture with per-account data isolation, but approval-gated write operations prevent autonomous execution. Differentiates from direct API clients by adding recommendation layer, but lacks transparency on API version, rate limit handling, and scope of supported operations.
vs alternatives: More secure than credential-based integrations (no password sharing), but less autonomous than native Google Ads automation; comparable to other third-party Google Ads tools (e.g., Optmyzr, Marin Software) in integration approach.
Augments Google Ads optimization recommendations by ingesting read-only data from Google Search Console (search queries, impressions, CTR, position) and Google Analytics (user behavior, conversion paths, landing page performance). Agents use this contextual data to improve keyword relevance, landing page alignment, and audience targeting recommendations. The integration is optional but improves recommendation quality by providing cross-channel performance context that Google Ads data alone cannot provide.
Unique: Implements cross-channel context aggregation by pulling Search Console and Analytics data into agent decision-making, but the mechanism for how agents weight or prioritize this context vs. Google Ads data is undisclosed. No feedback loop back to Search Console or Analytics.
vs alternatives: More holistic than Google Ads-only optimization tools, but less integrated than native Google Analytics 4 + Google Ads integration; lacks real-time data sync and bidirectional feedback.
+6 more capabilities
Executes SQL queries against Supabase PostgreSQL instances through the Model Context Protocol, translating natural language or structured query requests into parameterized SQL statements. Uses MCP's tool-calling interface to expose database operations as callable functions with schema validation, enabling LLM agents to perform CRUD operations, joins, and aggregations with automatic connection pooling and credential management through Supabase client SDK.
Unique: Exposes Supabase PostgreSQL as MCP tools with automatic credential injection from Supabase client SDK, eliminating manual connection string management and enabling seamless LLM-to-database queries within Claude or compatible agents
vs alternatives: Tighter integration than generic SQL MCP servers because it leverages Supabase's built-in authentication and connection pooling rather than requiring separate database credential configuration
Exposes Supabase Auth session state and user metadata through MCP tools, allowing agents to inspect current authentication context, retrieve user profiles, and trigger auth-related operations. Integrates with Supabase's JWT-based auth system to validate sessions and access user claims without re-authenticating, using the Supabase client's built-in session management.
Unique: Integrates Supabase's JWT-based auth system directly into MCP tool interface, allowing agents to inspect and act on auth state without managing separate credential stores or re-authentication flows
vs alternatives: More seamless than generic auth MCP servers because it leverages Supabase's built-in session management and avoids redundant credential passing between agent and auth system
Invokes Supabase Edge Functions (serverless TypeScript/JavaScript functions) through MCP tools, passing parameters and receiving results with optional streaming support. Uses Supabase's edge function HTTP API to trigger functions with automatic authentication headers and response parsing, enabling agents to execute custom business logic without embedding it in the agent itself.
Supabase scores higher at 42/100 vs Blobr at 22/100. Blobr leads on quality, while Supabase is stronger on ecosystem. Supabase also has a free tier, making it more accessible.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
Unique: Exposes Supabase Edge Functions as MCP tools with automatic authentication and response parsing, allowing agents to invoke custom serverless logic without managing HTTP clients or credential injection
vs alternatives: More integrated than generic HTTP MCP tools because it handles Supabase-specific authentication, error handling, and response formatting automatically
Subscribes to real-time changes on Supabase tables through MCP's event streaming interface, using Supabase's PostgreSQL LISTEN/NOTIFY mechanism to push INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE events to agents. Maintains persistent WebSocket connections and filters events by table and row-level policies, enabling agents to react to database changes without polling.
Unique: Bridges Supabase's PostgreSQL LISTEN/NOTIFY real-time system with MCP's tool interface, enabling agents to subscribe to database changes without managing WebSocket connections or event serialization
vs alternatives: More efficient than polling-based approaches because it uses Supabase's native real-time infrastructure rather than repeated database queries
Manages files in Supabase Storage buckets through MCP tools, supporting upload, download, list, and delete operations with automatic authentication and path-based access control. Uses Supabase's S3-compatible storage API with built-in support for public/private buckets and signed URLs for temporary access, enabling agents to handle file I/O without managing cloud storage credentials.
Unique: Exposes Supabase Storage's S3-compatible API as MCP tools with automatic authentication and signed URL generation, eliminating the need for agents to manage cloud storage credentials or generate temporary access tokens
vs alternatives: More integrated than generic S3 MCP tools because it leverages Supabase's built-in bucket policies and authentication rather than requiring separate AWS credentials
Performs semantic similarity searches on vector embeddings stored in Supabase PostgreSQL using pgvector extension, translating natural language queries into embedding vectors and executing cosine/L2 distance searches. Integrates with embedding providers (OpenAI, Cohere) or uses pre-computed embeddings, enabling agents to retrieve semantically similar documents or records without full-text search limitations.
Unique: Integrates pgvector directly into MCP tools with automatic embedding generation and distance calculation, enabling agents to perform semantic search without managing separate vector database infrastructure
vs alternatives: More efficient than external vector databases (Pinecone, Weaviate) for Supabase users because it colocates embeddings with relational data, reducing network latency and simplifying data synchronization
Exposes Supabase database schema information through MCP tools, allowing agents to discover table structures, column types, constraints, and relationships without manual schema documentation. Queries PostgreSQL information_schema and Supabase metadata tables to dynamically generate schema descriptions, enabling agents to construct valid queries and understand data relationships.
Unique: Queries Supabase's PostgreSQL information_schema directly through MCP tools, enabling agents to dynamically discover and adapt to database schemas without pre-configured schema definitions
vs alternatives: More flexible than static schema definitions because it reflects live database state, including recent migrations or schema changes
Enforces Supabase Row-Level Security policies within agent queries, ensuring that agents can only access rows permitted by RLS rules defined in the database. Evaluates policies based on authenticated user context (JWT claims, user ID) and applies WHERE clause filters automatically, preventing unauthorized data access at the database layer rather than application layer.
Unique: Delegates authorization enforcement to PostgreSQL RLS policies rather than implementing authorization in agent code, ensuring that data access rules are centralized and cannot be bypassed by agent logic
vs alternatives: More secure than application-level authorization because RLS is enforced at the database layer, preventing accidental data leaks even if agent code has bugs
+1 more capabilities