Please do not use those online tools which claim to measure how good is your content blocker, they are often flawed.[0]
I don't know how much that applies to this particular tool, but I did notice that it's flagging requests as 'not blocked' even though they're blocked with uMatrix.
I see double click coverage, Amazon coverage, and a tiny amount of Facebook, but missing a lot of large players in the adtech space. I don’t see Microsoft being explicitly called here.
Then from the large scale independent companies I see none of them on here? Shouldn’t you try Trade desk, Magnite, Applovin, Criteo, Xandr as well?
Then you would want to check vs data brokers as well; Experian, Equifax, Axciom, Epsilon, LexisNexus, Liveramp, and CoreLogic at minimum.
The methodology for validation seems a bit off, in my setup I return a local IP for all of the domains in that list and serve empty content for it. Thus it detects the ads getting through, but in reality they did not.
I think this is expecting a full block down to the domain? But most browser ad blockers are a lot more granular than that, and for good reason. Blocking a whole domain can have a lot of undesirable side effects.
[0]: https://xcancel.com/gorhill/status/1583581072197312512
I see double click coverage, Amazon coverage, and a tiny amount of Facebook, but missing a lot of large players in the adtech space. I don’t see Microsoft being explicitly called here.
Then from the large scale independent companies I see none of them on here? Shouldn’t you try Trade desk, Magnite, Applovin, Criteo, Xandr as well?
Then you would want to check vs data brokers as well; Experian, Equifax, Axciom, Epsilon, LexisNexus, Liveramp, and CoreLogic at minimum.
EDIT it's below the fold: "Some browser/blocker combinations may affect results. If uBlock Origin breaks the test, allow adblock.turtlecute.org."
Went from 5% to 84% after I made the change.