If you're evaluating adblock recovery solutions, you've probably searched something like "best adblock recovery software" or "top adblock recovery providers" and landed on a handful of the same names like Blockthrough and Funding Choices. Maybe Ad-Shield too.

‍

Here's the problem with most comparisons you'll find: they rank providers based on a context that no longer exists, not by what they can actually recover. In 2026, that distinction matters more than ever.

‍

Before ranking anyone, you need one piece of context the rest of this list depends on.

Why Most Rankings Get This Wrong

Adblocking traffic isn't one audience anymore. It's split into two:

‍

• Gray traffic (21%): generated by soft adblockers like AdBlock and Adblock Plus. These tools allow analytics to run, "turn off your adblocker" walls to display, and participate in Acceptable Ads.
• Dark traffic (79%): generated by brutal adblockers like uBlock Origin, AdGuard, Brave, and hundreds of VPN and network-level tools. These block everything: ads, analytics, walls, cookie banners. Much of it never shows up in a publisher's dashboard at all.

‍

A provider's rank on "best adblock recovery" lists usually reflects how long they've been associated with the category, not which side of the 79/21 split they can reach. That's because many of these rankings are built on data from an outdated context: dark traffic stayed hidden from the industry until 2024 to 2025.

‍

Gray traffic dominated up until recently, so any adblock recovery service launched before 2023 was designed from the ground up with this in mind (that's all of the familiar names, excluding Ad-Shield). That's how the legacy companies got well known, mostly during the 2015 to 2020 era, when gray traffic became an issue worth tackling in the industry.

‍

Conversely, Ad-Shield was built from the ground up to tackle dark traffic, which is now dominant in 2026.

‍

The Four Methods, Ranked by What They Can Actually Recover

Every provider on every list falls into one of four schools of thought. Knowing which one you're looking at tells you almost everything about what to expect.

‍

1. Restoration — reaches both traffic types, full ad stack recovery

Example: Ad-Shield

Restoration reinstates the publisher's own ad stack (GAM, Prebid, SSPs, direct-sold) rather than substituting alternative demand. Because it doesn't depend on adblocker cooperation or user action, it reaches both gray and dark traffic, at RPMs comparable to non-adblocked inventory.

• Gray traffic: ✅
• Dark traffic: ✅
• Ad yield: High
• Requires user action: No

This is the only method built after brutal adblockers became the majority of the problem, which is why it's the only one architected to reach them.

‍

2. Whitelisting — gray traffic only, capped formats

Example: Blockthrough

Whitelisting works through Acceptable Ads, a program run by eyeo (the company behind AdBlock and Adblock Plus). Adblockers have to opt in, and their users have to opt in. Brutal adblockers don't participate, so this method is structurally limited to the 21% of adblocking traffic that's already visible in a standard analytics dashboard. Acceptable Ads also caps what formats can run, no animation, no video, which suppresses yield even within the traffic it can reach.

• Gray traffic: ✅
• Dark traffic: ❌
• Ad yield: Low
• Requires user action: No

‍

3. Allowlisting — gray traffic mostly, requires the user to act

Example: Funding Choices (Google), Admiral

Allowlisting shows a message asking the visitor to disable their adblocker. When it works, recovery is full-yield: the whole ad stack comes back. The catch is that it only works on users who can see the message and have permission to act on it. Brutal adblockers suppress the message outright for roughly half of dark traffic, and much of the rest is IT-installed, meaning the user has no ability to turn it off even if they wanted to. In practice, 80 to 90% of dark traffic never converts.

• Gray traffic: ✅
• Dark traffic: ❌ (in practice)
• Ad yield: High, but only for the 10 to 20% who disable their adblocker
• Requires user action: Yes

‍

4. Reinsertion — reaches both traffic types, substitute demand

Example: AdDefend

Reinsertion bypasses the adblocker entirely, which means it can reach dark traffic, much like restoration. The difference is what gets served: substitute demand, not the publisher's own demand relationships. That broadens reach but caps yield, since the ads are drawn from a narrower pool of advertisers bidding specifically for recovery inventory on a narrower range of ad formats (often native only). This demand is typically much lower quality.

• Gray traffic: ✅
• Dark traffic: ✅
• Ad yield: Low
• Requires user action: No

‍

So, Who's "Best"?

If you're an open web publisher where ad monetization is the primary revenue stream — meaning your business lives or dies by RPM and not subscriptions — restoration is nearly always the most productive approach, and usually by a wide margin.

‍

The reason comes back to the same split covered above. Whitelisting (Blockthrough) and allowlisting (Funding Choices, adblock walls) were both built for a market where gray traffic was the majority. That market hasn't existed for a while.

‍

On a typical open web publisher's traffic mix today, restoration outperforms adblock wall and Acceptable Ads-based approaches by 3 to 5X on average. Not because those methods got worse at what they do, but because what they do only ever covered 21% of the problem to begin with. Restoration was built to cover the other 79% too, at a similar yield as the publisher's existing demand.

‍

For an ad-dependent open web publisher, there's very little scenario in which recovering less traffic, at lower yield, at the cost of user action, outperforms recovering more traffic at full yield with no user action required. Ad-Shield is the only provider running restoration at scale in 2026, live across 5,000+ publisher sites, with no revenue share paid to adblockers.

‍

Are there exceptions to this rule? Sure. Publishers without an existing ad stack worth restoring, such as those running on AdSense alone. For that specific case, a reinsertion provider may out-earn restoring a thin existing setup. But that use case only really applies to "mom and pop" style hobby blogs that are unmanaged by a sales house. Most ad-dependent open web publishers of any meaningful audience size have exactly the kind of established demand relationships that restoration is well suited for.

‍

The Questions That Actually Separate Providers

Whatever list you're working from, these are the questions that cut through the marketing:

‍

Is their recovery rate measured against total traffic, or just detected adblocked traffic?

A provider that can't see dark traffic will report a misleadingly high recovery rate, because they're only measuring the slice they can detect. For example, they will say they can recover for "90%+" of adblockers. The real metric that matters is reporting the percentage of pageviews that are adblocked versus total pageviews. For example: a 23% adblock rate.

‍

Do they restore your existing ad stack, or serve substitute inventory?

This is the single biggest yield determinant.

‍

Can they name which adblockers they don't recover from, and why?

A provider with a considered, selective strategy will answer this specifically. One that claims to recover "90%+ of adblockers" usually isn't counting many brutal adblockers.

‍

The Bottom Line

Many "top adblock recovery provider" lists were accurate as "most established adblock recovery brand" lists in 2020, but that's a misleading proxy in 2026. The market has split into gray and dark traffic, and only two of the four recovery methods can reach both. Of those two, only one, restoration, does it without sacrificing yield. And right now, there's only one company that specializes in it: Ad-Shield.

‍

That's not a reason to take our word for it. It's a reason to ask any provider on any list which side of the 79/21 split they're actually built for.