Channel comparisons

• vs Google Shopping vs Meta: feed requirements compared Google Shopping and Meta share almost every attribute name, so a Shopify feed built for one parses on the other, but they disagree about what is mandatory. Meta requires condition on every item and ignores google_product_category; Google treats identifiers as conditional and checks the feed against your product page.
• vs Google Shopping vs Microsoft Advertising: feed requirements compared Microsoft Advertising modelled its feed specification on Google's, down to using the same product taxonomy, making these the closest pair of channels documented here. The differences lie not in attribute names but in enforcement, refresh cadence, and whether you publish a second feed or import your Google account.
• vs Google Shopping vs OpenAI: feed requirements compared OpenAI is the least Google-like channel documented here. Half the core attributes carry a different name, price is one string with the currency inside it, variants use a different grouping shape, and the feed is pushed over SFTP rather than fetched from a URL you host.
• vs Google Shopping vs Pinterest: feed requirements compared Pinterest borrows Google's attribute names but asks less of a feed: most of what Google requires conditionally is optional here. What Pinterest does demand is a genuinely good image, because the image is the listing rather than a thumbnail, and a separate feed for each market.
• vs Meta vs Microsoft Advertising: feed requirements compared Meta and Microsoft Advertising both borrowed Google's attribute names, which makes them look interchangeable, but they disagree on almost every conditional field. Microsoft wants the Google product taxonomy and a strict identifier chain; Meta ignores the taxonomy entirely and requires condition on every item instead.
• vs Meta vs OpenAI: feed requirements compared A Meta catalogue feed and an OpenAI product feed describe the same catalogue in incompatible shapes. Five core fields are renamed, price carries its currency inside the value, variants are rebuilt around group_id and variant_dict, and the file is pushed over SFTP instead of fetched.
• vs Meta vs Pinterest: feed requirements compared Meta and Pinterest are the two most image-driven channels documented here, and their feed requirements are correspondingly light on identifiers. The differences are in cadence, in market structure and in what a good image means: Meta enforces resolution minimums on Shops, Pinterest rewards vertical crops.
• vs Microsoft Advertising vs OpenAI: feed requirements compared Microsoft Advertising follows Google's specification closely, so an OpenAI feed differs from it in exactly the ways it differs from Google: six renamed fields, a price string carrying its own currency, a rebuilt variant structure, and delivery by SFTP push rather than a scheduled fetch.
• vs Microsoft Advertising vs Pinterest: feed requirements compared Microsoft Advertising and Pinterest sit at opposite ends of how demanding a feed specification can be while using the same vocabulary. Microsoft wants the Google taxonomy and a strict identifier chain and can reject items outright; Pinterest treats nearly all of that as optional and cares about the image instead.
• vs Pinterest vs OpenAI: feed requirements compared Pinterest and OpenAI are the two channels least like the Google baseline, in opposite directions. Pinterest asks for less than anyone and wants a separate feed per market; OpenAI asks for a different shape entirely, requires brand and seller_name, and takes delivery by SFTP push.

Frequently asked questions