Where Worth AI's ads lose the buyer

Worth AI is running 18 live ads on LinkedIn and Google. Their average fit to their own ideal buyer is 7 out of 10, and 5 ads need fixing. Each ad below is one of Worth AI’s real live creatives, read straight from the ad libraries.

Worth AI’s live ads, scored against their buyer

  • SMB Onboarding, Solved by Worth, scored 8/10 against Worth AI’s ideal buyer. Named ICP buyers and broken pain land well, but AE-as-spokesperson format softens authority for a CRO or VP.
  • Uncover Hidden Risk Beyond Standard KYB, scored 7/10 against Worth AI’s ideal buyer. Continuous Decision Intelligence and hidden risk framing resonate, but 'Learn More' CTA and no outcome metric leave the click weak.
  • Meet CODI: Autonomous Underwriting, scored 6/10 against Worth AI’s ideal buyer. Product-launch framing puts the feature first and the buyer pain last, making it harder for a risk leader to self-identify.
  • Get to know Tom LoMedico at Worth, scored 7/10 against Worth AI’s ideal buyer. Human-face format builds trust and copy hits core ICP pain, but no proof or specifics to seal the click.
  • Accurate EIN Verification, scored 7/10 against Worth AI’s ideal buyer. Specific data point and competitive claim make EIN verification credible, though fraud prevention framing is narrower than full ICP pain.
  • Get Started, scored 6/10 against Worth AI’s ideal buyer. Consolidation angle and 3-field hook are relevant but 'Get Started' headline wastes the prime position on a generic CTA.
  • Get Started, scored 7/10 against Worth AI’s ideal buyer. Specific scale proof and 3-field simplicity speak directly to high-volume onboarding pain, but headline is wasted on a generic CTA.
  • Get Started, scored 8/10 against Worth AI’s ideal buyer. Quantified outcome tied directly to automated decisioning is the sharpest ICP hook in the set, only held back by a generic headline.
  • Use the Wallet Now - Worth, scored 5/10 against Worth AI’s ideal buyer. Wallet framing and tokenized info are unclear to a risk or compliance buyer searching for onboarding automation.
  • Operational Risk Management, scored 7/10 against Worth AI’s ideal buyer. 90% time reduction is a strong quantified claim that matches the ICP query intent well, though Pre-Filling feature name needs context.
  • Operational Risk Management, scored 7/10 against Worth AI’s ideal buyer. 90% time reduction is a strong quantified claim that matches the ICP query intent well, though Pre-Filling feature name needs context.
  • Instant Decision-Making with Worth Score™, scored 6/10 against Worth AI’s ideal buyer. Score visual is compelling but no data proof or ICP pain named to earn the click.
  • Increase Approvals Over 37%, scored 8/10 against Worth AI’s ideal buyer. Specific approval lift and 242M database proof directly address the onboarding speed pain.
  • Cut Onboarding Time by 50%, scored 8/10 against Worth AI’s ideal buyer. Two quantified claims and manual-process pain hit the ICP squarely, though dual headlines dilute focus.
  • Instant Decision-Making with Worth Score™, scored 6/10 against Worth AI’s ideal buyer. Score visual is compelling but no data proof or ICP pain named to earn the click.
  • Faster Time-to-Revenue, scored 7/10 against Worth AI’s ideal buyer. 90% application time reduction is a strong specific claim tied directly to revenue speed.
  • Decrease Abandonment by 43%, scored 9/10 against Worth AI’s ideal buyer. Abandonment stat hits the ICP's sharpest pain, backed by approvals, compliance, and risk in one line.
  • Fill Applications in 3 Clicks, scored 7/10 against Worth AI’s ideal buyer. Concrete mechanic and 90% stat are strong but headline feels applicant-facing rather than operator-facing.

See Worth AI’s full live-ad board on AdRoast. Every creative scored against their ICP, with the exact fix for each.

Learn the method behind these scores: the AdRoast guides cover how to audit your ads against your ICP and why clicks do not turn into pipeline.