Google and Microsoft: How their Performance Max approaches align and diverge

Performance Max (PMax) campaigns have become the cornerstone of AI-driven advertising. 

Both Google and Microsoft offer advertisers a way to consolidate creative assets, audience signals, and automation into a single campaign type. (Disclosure: I work as Microsoft’s product liaison.)

While the concept is similar across platforms, the execution and feature sets differ significantly.

This article aims to provide an objective comparison of Google PMax and Microsoft PMax as of late 2025. 

We’ll explore what’s universally true, what’s unique to each platform, and strategic considerations for advertisers looking to maximize performance.

What’s universally true about PMax

Despite platform differences, several foundational principles apply to PMax campaigns across both Google and Microsoft:

Asset groups replace ad groups

PMax campaigns use asset groups instead of ad groups. 

Each asset group contains a mix of creatives (images, headlines, videos where applicable) and audience signals. 

Unlike ad groups, asset groups do not carry inherent prioritization. 

Budget allocation is at the campaign level, so if you create multiple asset groups, expect the system to distribute spend algorithmically rather than based on your preferences. 

Tip: If you want to prioritize certain creative or audience segments, create separate campaigns rather than relying on asset groups.

Automation and conversion requirements

PMax is designed for automation. Both platforms require you to use Maximize Conversions or Maximize Conversion Value bidding strategies. 

This means you must have conversion tracking in place. Ideally, you should achieve at least 30 conversions within a 30-day period to ensure stable performance. 

Major changes, such as bid strategy shifts or prolonged pauses, trigger learning periods that can temporarily impact results.

Goal alignment matters

PMax works best when your goals reflect reality. 

Setting an artificially low ROAS target will not guarantee more volume; it will guarantee lower ROAS. 

Align your budgets and bidding strategies with actual business objectives to avoid performance volatility.

Search term visibility and negatives

Both platforms provide search term insights from keywordless technology and search themes. 

• Google PMax supports negative keywords broadly, allowing up to 10,000 negatives per campaign. 
• Microsoft PMax’s self-serve negative keyword support is still in pilot as of Q4 2025.  

Advertisers can chat with support to have negatives added to their campaigns until the full roll-out of the pilot.

Ad rank and AI placements

PMax campaigns compete based on ad rank, just like traditional search campaigns.

Both platforms unlock AI-driven placements, but Microsoft has had these live longer and reports strong performance.

If AI surfaces are a priority, PMax is the campaign type to lean into.

What’s true for Google PMax

Google PMax has matured significantly since its launch, offering robust features and transparency tools that advertisers have long requested.

Channel-level reporting

Google provides full channel reporting for PMax campaigns. 

You can see how budget is allocated across Search, Display, YouTube, and other networks. 

This transparency helps advertisers make informed decisions about complementary campaigns.

Video creative

Google PMax supports video assets, enabling placements on YouTube and Display. 

This is a major differentiator for advertisers focused on visual storytelling or brand awareness. 

Microsoft’s PMax is more focused on search, so advertisers who don’t value video placements may appreciate Microsoft’s budget allocation more.

Brand controls and acquisition goals

Google offers brand inclusions/exclusions and new customer acquisition goals as fully available features. 

These controls allow advertisers to refine targeting and optimize for incremental growth.

Microsoft’s open pilot for New Customer Acquisition is focused on “purchase” goals, and additional conversion types are on the roadmap.

Campaign and theme limits

Google allows up to 100 PMax campaigns per account and up to 50 search themes per campaign.

Creative automation

Google has introduced AI-generated brand-consistent assets and video enhancements. 

This feature reduces creative production friction and ensures ads align with brand guidelines.

Inventory mix and CPC dynamics

Google PMax often allocates more spend to visual inventory (YouTube, Display), which can lower CPCs compared to Microsoft PMax’s heavier search mix.

This impacts cost dynamics and should be factored into planning.

---

What’s true for Microsoft PMax 

Microsoft PMax brings unique advantages, particularly for advertisers focused on B2B or leveraging Microsoft’s ecosystem.

Higher campaign limits

Microsoft allows up to 300 PMax campaigns per account. 

This flexibility benefits advertisers with complex account structures or diverse product lines.

Impression-based remarketing

Exclusive to Microsoft, impression-based remarketing lets you build audiences based on ad views (not clicks). 

You can target, exclude, or adjust bids for these audiences, accelerating learning and improving creative focus.

Dig deeper: The future of remarketing? Microsoft bets on impressions, not clicks

LinkedIn targeting signals

Microsoft PMax integrates LinkedIn profile data, including industry, job function, and company size. 

This is a game-changer for B2B advertisers seeking high-quality leads.

AI placement track record

Microsoft PMax creatives have been serving in AI placements longer than Google, with strong performance indicators. 

If AI-driven inventory is a priority, Microsoft offers proven results.

Search theme utility

Microsoft Search Themes offer a useful way to educate the algorithm without limiting volume. 

This means the up to 25 Search Themes you can add to a PMax campaign act as grounding signals rather than volume caps.  

Aligning goals and structure across Google and Microsoft PMax

When deciding between Google and Microsoft PMax (or determining how best to combine their strengths), your goals, resources, and audience should guide your strategy.

PMax should be viewed as a tool for incrementality 

PMax is not a replacement for proven search campaigns. 

Use PMax to reach new audiences and capture incremental traffic, leveraging bias-free targeting and the platforms’ keywordless technologies that extend beyond traditional match types.

Account structure becomes critical with PMax

If your asset groups have distinct personas or objectives, it’s wise to create separate campaigns. 

Additionally, avoid setting more than a 40% to 50% difference in ROAS goals within a single campaign.

On Microsoft, the ability to run up to 300 campaigns is only valuable if you have the resources to allocate budgets effectively.

Creative diversity is an advantage across both platforms

For Google, prioritize video assets to maximize YouTube reach. On Microsoft, make the most of LinkedIn signals and impression-based remarketing to drive B2B lead generation.

Budget allocation strategies must account for inventory mix

Google PMax may lean more heavily toward Display and YouTube, which has implications for CPCs and conversion paths. 

Microsoft tends to emphasize Search and LinkedIn audiences, which can deliver higher-quality leads but potentially at higher CPCs.

Bringing the strengths of both PMax platforms together

Both Google and Microsoft PMax represent the future of automated advertising. 

They share core principles (asset groups, automation, AI placements), and diverge in execution. 

Google excels in creative automation and transparency, while Microsoft shines in B2B targeting and remarketing innovation.

For most advertisers, the best approach is not either/or but both, leveraging each platform’s strengths to achieve complementary goals. 

Whether you prioritize video storytelling or LinkedIn-powered lead generation, PMax offers a powerful way to scale campaigns intelligently.