Free tool by Clarvivo · no login
Upload matching Shopify and Meta exports. We use paid orders as financial truth and explain whether Meta's gap is normal, missing or impossible.
Export both over the same date range. Shopify is financial truth; Meta is the claimed measurement.
This tool answers: Is Meta over-reporting purchases relative to actual orders?
Enable JavaScript to run the check — the diagnosis itself is free and needs no account.
Meta's purchase numbers are a claim, not a count. Meta attributes a purchase to an ad if the buyer clicked within the click window or, by default, viewed an ad within a day. It also models conversions it can't observe directly. The result can be higher or lower than your actual orders, and both directions can be legitimate or broken.
If Meta reports more purchases than Shopify took, either duplicate Purchase events are firing, or view-through attribution is claiming orders that came from elsewhere. If Meta reports far fewer, the Purchase event may be failing on some checkout paths, or the Conversions API and Pixel aren't covering all orders.
This analyzer compares Shopify's paid orders and revenue with Meta's purchases and purchase value over the same period, and classifies the gap so you know which story the numbers tell.
These answer the questions this one tends to raise.
So you can trust the result — and your developer can verify it.
Shopify orders (total, financial status, date) and a Meta Ads export with Purchases and purchase conversion value, plus date and currency if available.
Different date ranges or currencies are flagged before the comparison, because they explain many gaps on their own.
Purchases against paid orders, and purchase value against gross revenue, are each classified as normal loss, under-reporting, broken, an exact match to check, or over-reporting.
Clarvivo keeps platform claims beside payments so anomalous gaps are visible before budget changes.
Reconcile Meta with real revenue