Why This Debate Exists
Since Meta rolled out the Andromeda learning system, many advertisers ask:
“Do Advantage+ campaigns perform better because they’re smarter, or because Meta forces them?”
The confusion is understandable. Advertisers who spent years mastering manual campaign structures suddenly see:
- Advantage+ outperforming carefully segmented setups
- Broad targeting beats layered interests
- Fewer controls produce more stable results
This has led to two extreme camps:
- “Manual campaigns are dead.”
- “Advantage+ is just Meta stealing control.”
Both assumptions are incomplete. To understand what works today, we need to stop comparing features and start comparing learning alignment.
First, a Critical Clarification
- Andromeda is the underlying learning system in Meta Ads.
- Advantage+ is a campaign format designed to reduce friction with Andromeda.
That distinction matters: Advantage+ is not “smarter” — it’s structured to align with Andromeda’s learning preferences.
If you’re still unclear on the distinction between the learning system and the ad formats Meta offers, we’ve explained the Meta Andromeda update in depth.
How Andromeda Evaluates Campaign Structures
Andromeda prioritizes:
- Signal density – the amount of usable data per campaign
- Signal consistency – stability of those signals
- Probability modeling – predicting conversions, not just clicks
It deprioritizes:
- Structural complexity
- Frequent resets or edits
- Human-imposed constraints
In short, Andromeda prefers clean, continuous learning environments.
Why Advantage+ Often Wins (But Not for the Reason You Think)
Advantage+ campaigns are designed to:
- Consolidate data into fewer learning pools
- Reduce manual segmentation
- Allow faster signal accumulation
- Let creative performance guide delivery
This alignment results in:
- More data per decision
- Fewer artificial boundaries
- Faster pattern recognition
Key point: Advantage+ does not add intelligence — it removes common human mistakes such as over-segmentation, excessive exclusions, and premature optimizations.
Where Advantage+ Fails (And Many Don’t Admit It)
Advantage+ is not a universal solution. It struggles when:
- Creatives are weak or generic
- Tracking (Pixel / CAPI) is incomplete
- Offers lack differentiation
- Funnel intent is unclear
Because Advantage+ reduces control, it amplifies input quality.
Bad inputs don’t get fixed. They get scaled.
This is why many advertisers see:
- High spend with unstable CPAs
- Poor learning despite consolidation
- Difficulty diagnosing performance issues
Advantage+ hides complexity — it doesn’t remove it.
Manual Campaigns: Still Relevant, But for Different Reasons
Manual campaigns are not obsolete, but they are less forgiving. They work best when:
- Funnel separation is clear
- Budgets per campaign are sufficient
- Messaging must differ by intent stage
- You’re testing distinct offers or markets
Manual campaigns can outperform Advantage+ in these scenarios because they provide intentional signal separation, not because they are inherently more optimized.
Manual campaigns struggle when:
- Budgets are fragmented across too many ad sets
- Learning resets happen frequently
- Structural changes outpace data accumulation
This can lead to incomplete signal modeling, slower optimization, and unstable delivery.
Advantage+ vs Manual: What Andromeda Actually Prefers
Andromeda doesn’t favor a campaign type.
It rewards learning efficiency.
Advantage+ aligns better when:
- Budgets are limited
- Creative volume is high
- Conversion signals are clean
- Advertisers tend to over-optimize
Manual campaigns align better when:
- Data volume is sufficient
- Funnel roles are clearly defined
- Changes are disciplined and infrequent
- Creative and messaging are intentional
The best setup is contextual, not ideological.
The Hidden Cost of “Control”
Many advertisers associate control with safety.
Post-Andromeda, excessive control often leads to:
- Fragmented learning
- Slower feedback loops
- Reduced signal clarity
This is why Meta increasingly encourages:
- Broad targeting
- Fewer campaigns
- Automated formats like Advantage+
Not to reduce transparency — but to support stronger learning conditions.
A Smarter Way to Think About Campaign Choice
Instead of asking:
“Should I use Advantage+ or manual campaigns?”
Ask:
“Which structure lets Andromeda learn fastest without distorting intent?”
That question leads to better decisions.
Practical Guidance: Choosing the Right Setup
Choose Advantage+ When:
- You’re scaling a proven offer
- Creative testing is your priority
- Budget efficiency matters more than granularity
- You want faster learning stabilization
Choose Manual Campaigns When:
- You’re separating cold vs warm intent
- Messaging must differ significantly by funnel stage
- You’re running distinct offers or regions
- You have the budget to support learning per campaign
Many mature advertisers combine both intentionally.
What This Means for Advertisers Today
The Andromeda era rewards:
- Fewer, stronger decisions
- Better creative inputs
- Cleaner signal pipelines
It punishes:
- Over-engineering
- Constant tinkering
- Structure-first thinking
Bottom line: Advantage+ exposes accounts already aligned with Andromeda. Manual campaigns remain relevant when used thoughtfully and with discipline.
About Reliqus
At Reliqus, we test both Advantage+ and manual campaigns across live accounts — not in isolation, but as part of full-funnel systems. Our recommendations come from observing how Andromeda behaves in practice, not from feature announcements.