Why is my competitor ad more engaging than mine?

When a competitor’s ad looks “more engaging,” it’s usually 3 things: visibility, relevance, and format

1) They may simply be showing higher (and higher positions get disproportionate attention)

Before you assume your competitor has “better copy,” separate creative engagement from auction visibility. If their ad is consistently above yours, it will usually pull a higher click-through rate even with similar messaging because it’s more prominent and often earns richer layouts.

In Search, position is driven by Ad Rank factors such as your bid strategy, the quality of your ads and landing pages (think expected click-through rate, ad relevance, and landing page experience), the expected impact of ad assets and formats, auction-time context (device, location, query nuance, time), and minimum thresholds required to appear in certain positions. Translation: your competitor can “look” more engaging because their ad qualifies to show with more on-screen real estate and/or shows in a more prominent location.

2) They may have a bigger, richer ad layout because they’re using (and earning) more assets

Modern Search ads aren’t just three headlines and two descriptions. The most engaging ads typically include combinations of sitelinks, callouts, structured snippets, business name/logo, images, promotions, and other eligible assets. Assets don’t just decorate the ad; they create more reasons to click and more pathways into the site.

Also, even if you’ve added assets, they won’t always show. Asset serving depends on predicted performance, available space, and Ad Rank in that specific auction. If your competitor consistently triggers more (and better-performing) asset combinations, their ad will appear more compelling and “complete.”

3) They may be matching search intent more precisely (so their ad feels like the obvious answer)

Engagement spikes when the ad mirrors the user’s intent: the exact problem, the preferred solution type, and the “proof” that the advertiser is credible. If your competitor is aligning keywords, ad themes, and landing pages more tightly—especially across different intent pockets—users experience less friction choosing them.

A systematic way to diagnose why their ads outperform yours (without guessing)

Step 1: Confirm you’re comparing the same auctions (many “competitor wins” are actually different queries)

The most common mistake I see is comparing your ad on one query to a competitor’s ad on a different query. One may be “research intent” and the other “purchase intent.” One may be brand-plus-category, and the other generic. Those are entirely different auctions.

Use competitive visibility reporting to see who you’re truly overlapping with, then pair it with search intent reporting that groups queries into themes so you can spot where your traffic is coming from and whether you’re under-serving the highest-intent categories.

• Check overlap and pressure: Identify when you and the competitor actually appear in the same auctions (and whether they’re moving up over time).
• Check intent mix: Validate whether your clicks are coming from the same search themes you want, not just whatever your match settings happen to pull in.
• Check device and location splits: If they’re stronger on mobile or in your best geos, their ad can look “better” because it’s winning the auctions that matter.

Step 2: Audit your responsive search ad “system health” (not just one headline)

Responsive search ads are an asset system. If your competitor is providing more high-quality options, the platform can assemble stronger combinations more often, tailored to each query context.

Start with Ad Strength as a practical diagnostic tool. It won’t directly determine whether you’re eligible to serve, but it’s one of the fastest ways to spot whether you’ve given the system enough unique, relevant building blocks.

What typically drives a competitor advantage here is simple: they have closer keyword-to-ad alignment, more unique headlines/descriptions (up to 15 headlines and 4 descriptions), and fewer unnecessary pins (pinning reduces the number of combinations that can serve). If you’re pinning heavily “because brand,” you may be accidentally shrinking performance.

Step 3: Review your asset reports like a creative P&L statement

If you’re not using asset performance labels to guide iteration, you’re leaving engagement to chance. Asset reporting can label items as learning, low, good, best, or unrated depending on volume and relative performance.

Here’s how to think about it: if you have multiple headlines frequently rated “Low,” you’re not just losing on those headlines—you’re dragging down the quality of many possible ad combinations. Replace what’s consistently “Low,” keep what’s frequently “Good/Best,” and add additional variants that express the same value proposition from different angles (price, speed, guarantee, use case, audience).

Step 4: Confirm whether you’re missing modern “trust signals” (business name/logo, images, seller ratings)

In many accounts, the engagement difference comes down to credibility cues that users process instantly. Competitors that show a consistent business name and logo often look more legitimate and recognizable at a glance. If you haven’t configured business information assets correctly (or you have conflicts between account-level and campaign-level settings), you may be unintentionally suppressing that trust signal.

Images are another frequent swing factor. Image assets (including dynamically selected images sourced from landing pages when enabled) can materially lift click-through rate when they appear, particularly on mobile where visuals help users scan results faster.

Finally, seller ratings can be a decisive differentiator. If your competitor displays star ratings and you don’t, the ad can look “more engaging” even if your offer is similar. Eligibility and thresholds apply, so treat this as a visibility advantage you may need to earn rather than a switch you flip.

Step 5: Check whether automation is creating (or improving) their text while yours is constrained

Recent platform changes moved “automatically created assets” into a broader campaign setting called text customization within newer automation configurations. If your competitor is allowing the system to generate additional headlines/descriptions (and you’re not), they may be showing more query-tailored messaging at scale.

Don’t blindly enable everything, though. If you allow automated text expansion, you should also commit to reviewing asset reporting regularly and removing anything that doesn’t align with your brand, compliance requirements, or offer accuracy.

How to make your ads more engaging (the improvements that move the needle fastest)

Build ads around intent clusters, then write assets to “win the moment”

If you want engagement, stop writing one “perfect ad” and start building a message set that answers multiple user motivations. Create tighter ad groups (or equivalent structures) so your keywords, ad assets, and landing pages all point at the same intent. This alone tends to lift ad relevance, expected click-through rate, and conversion rate because you’re reducing mismatch.

Then write your responsive search ad assets with deliberate coverage. You want enough unique headlines/descriptions that the system can test different angles without repeating the same idea in slightly different words.

A strong structure usually includes: a direct “what you do” headline, a differentiator headline, a proof headline (reviews, years, volume—only what you can substantiate), an offer headline (shipping, financing, consultation—only if it’s always true), and a set of audience/use-case headlines (for specific industries, problems, or product categories). Descriptions should connect features to outcomes and pre-qualify the click so you buy fewer low-intent visits.

Use pinning like a scalpel, not a hammer

Pinning can be useful for compliance or critical messaging, but heavy pinning reduces the number of eligible combinations and can limit performance. When you must pin, consider pinning multiple different assets to the same position so you preserve variety while still controlling placement.

Upgrade your “ad format” so it’s impossible to ignore (assets, business info, and images)

If your competitor’s ad feels bigger, match them with legitimate value, not fluff. Add every asset type that makes sense for your business and keep the quality high. The system will decide what to show auction-by-auction, but you can’t win with assets you never provided.

Prioritize sitelinks that reflect real user journeys (pricing, services, categories, locations, comparisons), callouts that state concrete advantages, and structured snippets that help users scan offerings quickly. Add business name and logo so your ad looks trustworthy and consistent. Test image assets, and if appropriate, opt into dynamic image sourcing so relevant images from your landing pages can be selected when predicted to help.

Iterate from evidence: replace “Low,” expand what’s “Best,” and give “Learning” time

Engagement improvements come from iteration cadence. Don’t rotate your entire message every week; you’ll keep assets stuck in “Learning.” Instead, replace the worst offenders, add a few net-new variants, and let the system gather enough volume to make the labels meaningful. This is the exact discipline that compounds over quarters and is often what separates a stable, high-engagement account from one that’s always “testing” but never learning.

Run controlled tests at scale using ad variations (instead of endlessly editing ads)

Editing an ad creates a new version and restarts approval and learning dynamics for that new version. A better approach is to create new ads to test alongside existing ones, because the system will typically show better-performing ads more often over time.

When you want to test a single change across multiple campaigns (for example, swapping a call-to-action phrase or introducing a new value proposition), use ad variations. You can control scope (account, campaign, or custom scope) and control what portion of traffic sees the modified ads. For many experiment types, a practical evaluation window is often measured in weeks rather than days, so plan for enough time to gather signal before making a permanent decision.

Don’t ignore policy and verification realities (they can quietly suppress engagement)

If your ads, assets, or business information are restricted, limited, or inconsistently approved, you can lose formats that drive engagement. In certain verticals, additional verification may be required, and specific claims can be disallowed or risky (especially around pricing, guarantees, or urgent service promises). If a competitor appears to “get away with it,” don’t copy it—build compliant trust signals you can keep long-term.

If a competitor’s ad looks more engaging, it’s often less about one “magic” headline and more about a few compounding advantages: they may be showing more often and in higher positions (so the ad naturally draws more attention), they’re likely using a richer mix of assets like sitelinks, callouts, snippets, images or promotions that makes the ad unit feel bigger, and their message may match the searcher’s intent more precisely from keyword to ad to landing page. In Google Ads, responsive search ads also reward variety and relevance, so accounts with stronger “RSA health” (more unique headlines/descriptions, minimal over‑pinning, and steady iteration based on asset performance labels) tend to earn better combinations over time, while trust signals like verified business name/logo, image assets, and ratings can further increase click confidence. If you want help turning these checks into concrete next steps, Blobr connects to your Google Ads and runs specialized AI agents like Headlines Enhancer and Ad Copy Rewriter to analyze your current assets, landing pages, and competitor messaging, then propose ready-to-apply improvements you can review and control.