Who is buying Google Ads against security workforce software queries in Australia, what their ads say, which keywords they hold, and where the client can take ground.
the client's own ads are not visible as an Australian advertiser. The Transparency Center lists [client domain] under one verified advertiser only, "[Client] Europe Ltd", and every sampled creative targets the UK ("Custom-Built for UK Security Companies", SIA badge checker, [client].co.uk). SpyFu's AU index shows the client on just two brand terms. Either the AU account runs under a different payer name whose domain isn't linked, or AU non-brand spend is too light to register. Worth checking advertiser verification and the payments profile in the AU account before anything else.
Three names the owner flagged as the ones that matter commercially. Each gets its own read: what they say, what they charge, whether they're in the auction, and what the client's ads and landing pages need to do about it.
Competitor A's security page sells four things: dispatch across multiple sites, 24/7 visibility, GPS clock-in, and timesheet export to payroll. It does not mention patrols, incident reporting, licence tracking, client invoicing or the Security Services Award, because Competitor A doesn't do those. That list is the switching pitch. One thing to verify: the Australian pricing page shows only the three paid tiers in AUD and a 31-day trial, not a free tier. If the 26 companies in the CRM "Competitor A vs the client" segment are on a legacy free plan, the pitch is "you've outgrown it"; if they're paying per user plus the payroll add-on, the pitch is total cost per guard with payroll and invoicing included.
| Keyword | Vol/mo | Top-of-page bid | Competition | Use |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [A] alternative / alternatives | 20 + 20 | $13 – $116 | High | Exact match. Highest-intent term in this audit. Cap the bid; the top of the range is Competitor D and a generalist fighting. |
| [A] vs | 10 | — | Medium | Exact and phrase; catches "[A] vs [D]" style comparisons. |
| [A] security | 10 | — | Low | Exact match. A security company asking whether Competitor A fits. |
| [A] pricing | 320 | $7 – $44 | Medium | Phrase, low bid. Mostly existing customers, but price-checkers convert on an AUD all-inclusive comparison. |
| [A] rostering · [A] app | 720 · 1,000 | $5 – $71 | Medium | Skip. Navigational traffic from Competitor A's own users; Competitor A bids its brand at $0.38 and will always outrank. |
Copy rules. Google lets you bid on "Competitor A" but not use it in ad text without authorisation, so the headline has to name the situation instead of the brand: "Outgrown Your Rostering App?", "Rostering Software Built for Security Companies", "Rosters, Patrols, Incidents & Invoicing in One". Descriptions carry the gap list: "Generic rostering stops at the timesheet. the client adds patrols, incident reports, licence checks and client invoicing." Send the click to a comparison page that lays out the four things Competitor A's security page omits, and states plainly what migration involves (staff import, roster import, how many days). If the client can import a Competitor A export, say so in the first screen.
Use the CRM segment in Google Ads, not just in CRM. Upload the segment's contacts as a Customer Match audience for a dedicated switching campaign (Search plus a light Display or YouTube remarketing layer) with the comparison-page creative. Mine the segment's call notes for the actual objection, which is usually either "we're already paying for Competitor A" or "our guards know the app", and answer that one objection in the ad, not all of them.
Competitor B is the closest like-for-like product in the set and is not in the auction at all. The Transparency Center holds no ads under the domain or the name, and SpyFu's only record is a single "staff rostering systems" ad from August 2023 at a $30 CPC. Its pricing page contradicts itself (the FAQ calls Starter free with a $55 minimum; the plan cards say $100), and it ranks organically only for its own name. In the auction, the client has this one to itself.
What the ad copy has to do. Both companies say "security-specific" and "Australian", so that claim is table stakes against Competitor B, not a differentiator. Competitor B's one proof point is "500+ companies". the client's copy needs numbers of its own that Competitor B can't match or hasn't published. Candidates to pull from the business, in order of persuasive weight: guards rostered per week, shifts or hours processed per month, invoices raised per month, years operating, named customers (the site says "Trusted by Australia's leading security companies", which is an adjective where a name would do), and integrations (the site has an integrations section; name the payroll and accounting systems). A headline like "12,000 Guards Rostered Every Week" or "Trusted by [named customer] and 300 Other Security Companies" beats "Built for Security". If the client has no minimum monthly spend, say so; Competitor B's $100 floor is a real objection for 5-to-20-guard companies.
Landing content. Match Competitor B's feature scope explicitly on the page (award and EBA interpretation, licence tracking, proof of service, invoicing) so a buyer comparing the two doesn't find a gap by omission, then lead with the proof numbers. Competitor B's auto-rostering claim is its most distinctive feature; if the client has auto-fill or rules-based rostering, name it.
Competitor C is the heaviest on operational features (alarm response and NFC patrol verification are its lead stories) and the boldest on pricing. It buys no Google Ads. Its brand search volume is real (about 3,600 a month for "[C]" plus 170 for "[C] app") but it is guards looking for the app, not owners looking to buy, so there's no conquest play on the brand. Its numbers dwarf anything else in this audit and one reference is a national-scale firm, so don't fight it on scale.
Address the pricing angle head-on. Competitor C's model reads as fair and flexible in a sales call, and a buyer who has heard it will ask the client "what do you charge per guard and can I leave?" The landing page must answer both before the buyer asks. Three ways to do it, and they stack:
Suggested ad assets for the pricing-sensitive buyer: headline "Transparent Pricing, No Surprises" (Competitor D already owns "No Surprises!", so prefer "Security Rostering With Honest Pricing" or "See Our Pricing Before You Book a Demo"), description "Rosters, payroll, invoicing and patrols for Australian security companies. Pricing on the page, not behind a demo." That last line is a direct contrast with Competitor C's demo-gated pricing page and with Competitor B's contradictory one.
One row per competitor, built from their Google, Meta and LinkedIn ad libraries, their landing and pricing pages, and their review-site and app-store ratings. the client's own row sits at the bottom, built the same way, so the gaps read both directions. Scroll sideways; the first column stays put.
| Competitor | Offer | Main promise | Ad hooks (Google · Meta · LinkedIn) | Landing page angle | Proof used | Objections handled | Pricing position | What they're not saying | the client angle |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Competitor AAU-native · live on all three channels | 31-day free trial, no credit card ("Start for free"). Lite, Core, Pro tiers plus payroll and HR add-ons. Flexi weekly plan for event businesses. | "Shifts, time and pay in one." Security page: "Fast, efficient rostering for security staff", dispatch across sites, 24/7 visibility, GPS timesheets to payroll. | Google: "Rosters & Payroll in One", "Stress-Free Staff Scheduling", "1B+ shifts managed", STP compliant, AI-assisted rosters. Meta (47 live AU): "Better Rosters, Less Admin", "Payday Without the Pain", restaurant and retail founder stories, gated labour-forecasting guide. LinkedIn (1,086 ads): payroll-compliance fear ("compliance issues start with the schedule: a missed break"), "Operational Efficiency Action Plan" download, care and healthcare verticals. |
Generic rostering page re-skinned per industry. Security page has two customer testimonials; CTA is the trial. No security-only feature. | 390,000 workplaces; 1B+ shifts. Capterra 4.6 (773), G2 4.6 (316), Google Play 4.7 (19k). Trustpilot 2.9 (130), mostly support and billing complaints. | Time spent rostering; payroll errors; award compliance (interpretation in Lite); last-minute replacements; commitment risk (no card, monthly billing). | Mid. AU$6.75 / 8.75 / 13 per user per month, payroll add-on AU$5. Transparent, annual saves 10%. No free tier on the AU page, only the trial. | Patrols, incident reporting, licence checks, client invoicing, the security award. Support quality (Trustpilot). Any security-specific number. That per-user pricing scales with casual pools, not with revenue. | "Outgrown generic rostering?" Name the four missing pieces. Price per guard scheduled, with invoicing and payroll included. "Real people, 24/7, free" against a 2.9 Trustpilot. State the import path. Customer Match the 26-company segment. |
| Competitor BQueensland · no ads on any channel | 14-day free trial, demo-first. Starter, Premium, Enterprise. FAQ calls Starter free; the plan card says $100. | "Australia's smartest rostering software": rosters that complete themselves. "The strength behind your security company." | Google: none live; one "staff rostering systems" ad in Aug 2023. Meta: none. LinkedIn: none. |
Feature-suite listing (Administration Suite, Security Operations Suite, Patrol Management) with cleaning and labour hire alongside. One testimonial. Demo everywhere. | "Trusted by 500+ Companies." Capterra 5.0 (2), GetApp 5.0 (2). No named customers, no volume figures. | Manual rostering time; licence and qualification tracking; "the spreadsheet we were using" (testimonial); award and EBA interpretation. | Low unit, with a floor. $5 per user per month AUD ex GST, $100 minimum; Starter $100 under 10 staff; Enterprise POA above 500. | Any number besides "500+". Who the customers are. App ratings. Support hours or SLA. Hosting or certification. Integrations by name. Which pricing is right. Why they're not advertising. | Out-proof them with the counters already on [client domain] (its own shift, guard and invoicing counters) and two named customers. 4.9 with two dozen reviews beats 5.0 with 2. "No minimum" if true. Match their feature list on the page so nothing is missing by omission. |
| Competitor C[C] · no ads on any channel | Demo. "$0.99 per rostered guard per week", active users counted weekly, billed monthly. No lock-in, no hidden fees, "no shifts, no charge". Sells NFC tags (Store) and training (Academy). | "Built for the Security Industry, by the Security Industry." "Not a generic platform rebranded for security." Real-time alarm response and NFC-verified patrols. | Google: none. Meta: none. LinkedIn: none. Brand searches (about 3,600 a month) are guards looking for the app. |
Operations-first: alarm response, patrol verification, key registers, route replay, then industry pages (hospital, corporate, retail, events). Big counters above the fold. "We handle the setup, train your team." "We listen, then we build." | 50,167+ locations, 2.87M+ shifts, 47,631+ users, 15.6M images, 95k alarm responses. ISO 27001. a national security company's manager and one regional firm quoted. No review-site listing found. | "Tired of rigid, overpriced platforms"; lock-in; growth ("you scale, we keep up"); setup burden; data security; subcontractor oversight. | Lowest headline unit in the set and usage-based. The pricing page itself returns 404; the rate appears only on the home page. | What "starting at" rises to. What payroll and award interpretation actually do. Invoicing. That the counters are lifetime totals. Any review rating. That subcontractor-heavy operators are the sweet spot. | Answer the price question on the page before they ask it: a per-guard number, contract terms in one line, and a total-cost comparison that includes invoicing and payroll. "Know your software cost before the month starts." Match ISO 27001 or state Azure, backups and the 99% uptime guarantee plainly. |
| Competitor Dlive on all three channels · ~900 Google ads | Free forever up to 10 users; 14-day trial, no credit card; "$29/month flat fee" for the first 30 users. Free demo, free guides. | One app for deskless teams. Security page: "visibility and accountability to stand behind your service." | Google: "$29 Flat Fee, No Surprises!", "Security Guard Scheduling App", "Try it 100% Free", "Competitor D vs. the Competitors" (its top creative, 90k–100k impressions). Meta (6 live AU): NFC time clock, "Pay exactly for the time worked", "No missed punches." LinkedIn (36): "Your time clock is ripping you off", "$126,000 a year lost for a 50-person crew", buddy punching, gated labour-cost guides. |
Security landing page with "Numbers from the field": 1.3x payroll accuracy, $5K–$10K monthly labour savings, 30% faster issue resolution, 2x less admin. FAQ pre-answers geofencing and per-site pay rates. "Switching is easy: quick setup, no credit card." | 80,000 companies, 1.8M users. Capterra 4.6 (5,309), Trustpilot 4.7 (1,712), app 4.8 (40k). Two security customer quotes. | Price; commitment; switching effort; buddy punching; multi-site pay rates; onboarding and training. | Cheapest entry in the set. But Operations, Communications and HR are separate hubs, each priced, so the "flat fee" is one hub of three. | Australian award interpretation or STP. Client invoicing. Licence compliance. That the full stack is three subscriptions. US-centric copy ("labor", a US payroll brand). No security-specific volume proof. | Price the whole job against three hubs. Award compliance and invoicing they don't have. Local support versus a global help desk. Borrow their format: three or four "numbers from the field" from the client customers (hours saved on licence checks is already on the pricing page). |
| Competitor Ethree owned brands · Google + LinkedIn | Free demo and product tour. Professional services: implementation, data migration, onboarding. Support plans, Academy certifications. "Built for 50+ guards." | "The platform behind three guard-software brands. Built for security at scale." End-to-end: scheduling, dispatch, DAR, billing, client portal. | Google: geofenced time clock, GPS + NFC, lone worker, "Simplify Guard Reporting", "Verify Guard Rounds". Meta: none (the another company's ads are a different company). LinkedIn (456): a car maker's former security chief on "a security budget executives can't refuse", vendor-selection webinars, an enterprise case study, French-language ads. |
Enterprise tour and demo. 4.4/5 badge, "Trusted by" logos, ISO 27001, NIST, GDPR and payroll-partner marks. Global campaign copy with no Australian signal. | Three owned brands; two enterprise case studies; G2 4.3 (61). Capterra 4.0 (35) on one of its products with "crashes a lot" and "not intuitive" reviews. | Scale; accountability; evidence for budget cases; checkpoint verification method; migration (professional services). | Hidden, enterprise, demo-gated. Their own ad says under 50 guards need not apply. | Price. Australian support hours or team. Anything for companies under 50 guards. Australian awards or payroll. The Valiant reviews. | "Made for 5 to 500 guards" against "50+". Price on the page against a demo gate. Local support in AU hours. Australian-built payroll and invoicing they don't touch. |
| Competitor FUS parent · Google quiet since Jul, LinkedIn active | Demo. Payroll-leakage and ROI calculators. The AU page carries UK and US phone numbers. | "#1 Security Guard Software, all-in-one business solution." Retain guards, win clients. ERP-grade back office (three product brands). | Google (to July): "Retains Guards & Win Clients", "More Control Over Every Shift", keyword insertion. Meta: none. LinkedIn (80): "Managing 100+ guards with margins under 4%?", "Calculate your guard payroll leakage", buddy punching and ghost hours, SLA penalties, cleaning tenders. |
Enterprise feature matrix: licence expiry alerts, contract-term enforcement, incident reporting, touring, BI. Three product brands on one page. | "Global leader"; owned brands. No review rating surfaced for the AU page. | Thin margins; payroll leakage; tender wins; compliance notifications; SLA risk. | Hidden, enterprise. Aimed at 100+ guards. | Price. Which of three products a buyer gets. An Australian team. Anyone under 100 guards. Why the AU search campaign stopped in July. | One product, one price, one Australian team. Take the top slot on "security guard software" while they're dark. Aim squarely at 10 to 100 guards. |
| Competitor GUK company · Google quiet since Mar, LinkedIn active | Free trial, no credit card, "Free Unlimited Users", plans not per-user. Intent-specific /ppc/ landing pages. | "Aussie Guard Monitoring System." Schedule, track and pay your team; all-in-one app plus client portal. | Google (to Mar/Jun): "Free Unlimited Users", "#1 Security Guard App", "Built for Aussie Teams", licence checks, lone worker. Meta: none. LinkedIn (18): stadium "matchday ready?" operations audits, audit-trail and traceability messaging for events. |
One page per intent (security-guard-app, security-rostering-software, guard-tour-system). Feature list, trial CTA, trust strip. | 150,000+ sites, 330,000+ employees, Capterra 4.8 (30). | Per-user cost (unlimited users); trial risk; lone worker safety; licence checks (SIA in the UK version). | Per-plan rather than per-user; figures not shown on the pricing page we fetched. | That it's a UK company with a +44 number. Australian award interpretation. Named Australian customers. Support hours in AEST. Why AU search went quiet. | Be the actual Australian one: ANZ customers by name, award compliance, support in local hours. Copy their per-intent landing pages. |
| Competitor HAU-native · Google + LinkedIn, no Meta | Demo. Essential $3.25 per active user per week ($12 a month); Everyday $3.75 ($15) with a dedicated implementation team. "Minimums apply." | Onboard, roster and pay in one. "Save days, not hours." An award and agreement interpretation engine that flags fatigue, minimum hours and overtime as you roster. | Google: "From $3.25 Per Employee", "Security Rostering Software", award compliance alerts, STP. Meta: none. LinkedIn (128): Payday Super readiness, underpayment cases in the headlines, "audit-ready payroll data", webinars with an employment-law firm. |
Compliance fear plus payroll automation. Industry pages, but one security query was sent to the manufacturing page in June. | Capterra 4.8 (25), on-site 4.5 (40), Xero app 5.0 (1). Reddit: UI, reporting and customisation complaints at about $4 an employee. | Underpayment risk; Payday Super; award complexity; local support; wage-cost visibility. | Per active user weekly with minimums, the same unit as Competitor C at three to four times the rate. Transparent tiers. | Patrols, incidents, guard operations of any kind. What the minimums are. Any security-specific proof. The UI and reporting complaints. | Payroll-compliance parity plus the operations layer they don't have. Name the security award. Security customers by name. |
| the client[client domain] · Google AU brand only · LinkedIn 27 ads · no Meta | Demo only. Licence tiers from a mid four-figure annual sum, priced on guards scheduled per month. Free setup, integration, onboarding and training. Free 24/7 support. 99% uptime guarantee on Azure. | "Streamline your security business." Smart rostering, error-free invoicing and payroll, mobile patrol app, incident reporting, daily licence checks. | Google AU: brand terms only in SpyFu; the Transparency Center listing is UK-targeted. Meta: none. LinkedIn (27): geofencing time clock, incident follow-ups, venue time clock for events, "Trust the Best", and SIA compliance ads aimed at the UK. |
Homepage with counters (shifts published weekly, guards on rosters, client invoices raised monthly), integrations, two named customer quotes ("removed 5 hours a week checking licences, First Aid and RSAs"). No per-intent pages. | Capterra, SoftwareAdvice and GetApp 4.9; own review site 5.0; Xero app listing. Google Play 1.8, App Store 3.3, guards complaining about clock-in and GPS. | Licence compliance; invoicing errors; setup cost (free); support access. | Highest entry commitment in the set: annual, from a mid four-figure sum, quote-based, no trial, no monthly option shown. | A per-guard or per-tier price. Contract length. Whether there's a trial. The guard-side app ratings. That the paid media skews UK. | Two things to fix before spending more: the guard app rating, which every competitor's sales team can quote, and the unpriced annual licence, which loses the comparison to $0.99 a week before a demo is booked. The counters and the 4.9 are the best proof in this market; put them in the ads. |
Channel presence is from the Google Ads Transparency Center (Australia filter), the Meta Ad Library (Australia and all countries, by page) and the LinkedIn Ad Library (by company), all pulled 2 Sep 2026. Meta searches for "Competitor A" and "Competitor E" first matched unrelated pages; Competitor A's real page was resolved by page id, and the another company's Meta ads belong to a different company. Review counts are what Google surfaced from Capterra AU, Trustpilot, G2, SoftwareAdvice, GetApp and the app stores; Capterra and G2 block direct reads, so figures come from search snippets and may lag.
Status is from the Google Ads Transparency Center, filtered to Australia. "AU security terms" counts SpyFu AU paid keywords containing "security" or "guard". Estimates are Google's total ad count for the advertiser across all regions.
| Advertiser | Type | AU status | Last AU serve | Formats | AU security terms | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Competitor E US company | Specialist | Live | 30 Aug 2026 | 4 text | 12 | Global US/EMEA campaigns spilling into AU; up to 15k impressions on one creative |
| Competitor F US company | Specialist | Quiet since Jul | 2 Jul 2026 | 4 text | 7 | Held position 1 on the core terms through June |
| Competitor G UK company | Specialist | Quiet since Mar | 28 Mar 2026 | 3 text · 2 image | 14 | Most AU-specific copy of anyone; dedicated /ppc/ landing pages |
| Competitor D [D] · Israeli company | Generalist | Live | 2 Sep 2026 | ~900 ads, text | 25 | Security-guard landing page, "$29 flat fee"; also bids security training terms |
| Competitor A [A] · AU company | Generalist | Live | 1 Sep 2026 | ~200 ads, text/video/image | 6 | AU-native; generic rostering copy on security terms, positions 1–3 |
| Competitor H AU company | Generalist | Live | 1 Sep 2026 | ~200 ads, mostly text | 4 | Has one "Security Rostering Software" ad; also sent a security query to a manufacturing page |
| an incident-management vendor GRC vendor | Adjacent (GRC) | Live | 31 Aug 2026 | 1 text, 17 regions | 3 | Incident-management vendor colliding on "security guard software" at $13 CPC |
| the organic leader [organic leader] | Specialist | No ads | — | — | 0 | Top organic result across the keyword set |
| Competitor B [B] | Specialist | No ads | Aug 2023 (SpyFu) | — | 0 | One "staff rostering systems" ad in 2023; nothing since. Priority competitor, see above |
| Competitor C [C] | Specialist | No ads | — | — | 0 | No record in Transparency Center or SpyFu. Priority competitor, see above |
| Eleven other guard-tour and patrol vendors | Specialist | No AU ads | — | — | 0–1 | Present in organic and app-store results only |
Also caught in the keyword overlap but not competing for security buyers: a care-rostering platform (~400 AU ads), an HR outsourcer, a payroll and warehouse software group, and three generalist rostering and HR tools.
SpyFu AU paid index. Volume is SpyFu's monthly estimate and is null for most long-tail terms in this niche; CPC is the exact-match estimate. "Bidders" is who SpyFu has seen in the paid results.
| Keyword | AU vol/mo | Exact CPC | Bidders seen |
|---|---|---|---|
| rostering software for security companies | 70 | — | Competitor G, Competitor E, Competitor H, Competitor A, Competitor D |
| security guard management software | — | $13.44 | Competitor E, Competitor F, Competitor G, Competitor D, an incident-management vendor, +2 |
| security guard software | — | $12.87 | Competitor E, Competitor F, Competitor G, an incident-management vendor, Google |
| security guard rostering software | — | $10.64 | Competitor D, GuardMetrics, Vector Solutions, BambooHR, TCP |
| security workforce management software | — | — | Competitor G, Competitor F, Competitor A, Competitor D, Competitor H, a payroll software group |
| security rostering software | — | — | Competitor E, Competitor A, Competitor D, Competitor G |
| security roster software | — | — | Competitor D, Competitor E, Competitor A |
| security staff rostering | — | — | Competitor A, Competitor D, Competitor H, an HR outsourcer, a generalist HR tool, another HR tool |
| guard shift scheduling | — | — | Competitor E, Competitor G, Competitor D, Competitor H, Competitor F, two others |
| security guard scheduling | — | — | Competitors E and F and two generalists |
| security roster | — | — | Competitor E, Competitor A, Competitor H, a generalist HR tool |
| security staff scheduling software | — | — | Competitor G only |
| guard tour verification system | — | — | Competitor E, JWM RFID, Zooy Patrol |
| mobile guard tour app | — | — | Competitor E only |
| [client brand] security | 36 | $7.34 | the client only (brand) |
Google's own numbers are lower still. Keyword Planner (pulled through DataForSEO for Australia) returns 10 monthly searches for every core term above: security guard software, security guard management software, security rostering software, rostering software for security companies, security workforce management software, security roster software, security guard scheduling software, security patrol app, security incident reporting software, guard tour software and mobile patrol app. Where it gives a CPC, it is steep: "security guard app" at about $22 and "security incident reporting software" at about $89 because GRC vendors bid it. Plan on the whole non-brand set delivering a few dozen clicks a month, and judge it on demo bookings rather than volume.
Two traps in this list. "Security management software" pulls GRC and cyber vendors (four GRC and cyber vendors) and should stay negative. "Security officers" and "security solutions" are dominated by guard companies selling services, not software; Competitor G bid them anyway at $6 to $7 CPC.
Checked and left out of the plan, for two reasons that are worth having in writing.
| Keyword | Bing AU vol/mo | Bing CPC | Read |
|---|---|---|---|
| security guard software · security rostering software · security guard management software · rostering software for security companies · security workforce management software · security guard scheduling software · guard tour software · security patrol app · security incident reporting software | 0 | — | Every category term returns zero or null across the last 12 months in Microsoft's own keyword data for Australia. |
| [A] rostering | 170 | $9.15 | Navigational, Competitor A's own users. |
| [A] pricing | 20 | $7.59 | The only conquest term with any Bing volume. |
| [A] alternative · [A] alternatives | 0 | — | No demand. |
| [D] · [C] · [B] | 1,390 · 140 · 50 | — | Brand navigational searches; competitors' existing customers. |
| [client brand] | 990 | — | Polluted by the generic word, as on Google. |
There is no category demand on Bing in Australia. Microsoft's keyword data (via DataForSEO, 2 Sep 2026) shows zero monthly searches for every security-software term in the battleground, against roughly 10 each on Google. The only Bing volume is brand navigation and "[A] pricing". A Microsoft Advertising import of the Google campaign would spend almost nothing and learn almost nothing.
Competitor intelligence for Bing does not exist as a data source. Microsoft has no equivalent of the Google Ads Transparency Center outside the EU, SpyFu and SEMrush do not index Bing paid results for Australia, and live Bing SERPs from both scraping providers returned unrelated pages (recipe sites and stock listings for "security guard management software"), so even ad presence cannot be observed. If the client wants a Bing presence, the sensible scope is a brand-protection campaign on "[client brand]" plus exact-match "[A] pricing" at a few dollars a day, run from the Google import, and reviewed after a quarter. It does not need a competitor audit.
Ad copy is quoted from SpyFu's AU ad history (dated by month seen, with the keyword it ran on) and from Transparency Center creatives. Copy is lightly trimmed.
[brand]_cpc_nb_maxconvs-tcpa_kwds_guard-tracking_us-emeaCompetitor E runs Max Conversions with a target CPA, non-brand, in a campaign named for the US and EMEA. Australia is receiving the spillover, so the copy carries no Australian signal. The proof points are scale (the brands it owns) and hardware features: GPS plus NFC checkpoints, geofenced time clock, daily activity reports, lone-worker protection. They also bid competitor-alternative terms ("[brand] alternatives" for its own sub-brands) for their own brands.
Opening for the client: "Built for 50+ guards" concedes every small and mid-sized Australian security company. No mention of Australian awards, invoicing or payroll.
Competitor F ran the most aggressive specialist campaign in the first half of 2026, holding position 1 on "security guard software", "security guard management software" and "security workforce management software" with an en-au industry page. The message is business outcomes: retain guards, win clients, scheduling plus invoicing plus billing. Their AU creatives were last served 2 July, which reads as a pause or a budget cut.
Opening for the client: the closest message to the client's own (scheduling plus invoicing). While Competitor F is quiet, the top slot on the two $13 terms is cheaper to hold.
Competitor G is UK-based but wrote the most Australian copy in the set, and is the only advertiser to mention licence checks. They also over-reached into service-buyer terms ("security solutions", "site security camera hire", "security providers") at $6 to $9 CPC, which is where budget goes to die. Transparency Center shows their AU creatives last served in late March; SpyFu still recorded position-1 ads in June, so treat them as reduced rather than gone.
Opening for the client: Competitor G borrowed "Aussie" without being Australian. the client can say it truthfully, with local support and Australian customers as proof.
Competitor D covers the entire keyword set with a security-guard variant of its generic scheduling copy and a hard price anchor. It shows up at positions 1 to 3 on "security rostering software", "security staff rostering", "security roster software" and "security guard management software" every month this year. Its weakness is that the copy is interchangeable with its construction and cleaning ads.
Competitor A is the biggest Australian-native spender in the overlap. On security terms it serves generic rostering copy and still lands positions 1 to 3, because its Quality Score and brand carry it. It never says the word "security" in the ads SpyFu captured on security keywords.
Competitor H is the only generalist that wrote a security-specific headline, and it is also the one that sent a "rostering software for security companies" click to a manufacturing landing page in June. Its strongest claim, award interpretation built for Australian awards, is the same claim the client can make specifically for the Security Services Industry Award.
cyber, SIEM, alarm, camera, training, course, officers, services, hire.