I would start by separating three different questions here, because they point to different fixes.
First, the rejection reason matters more than the click count. As Garlick and Hot_Box noted, find the exact reason given for each rejection, and check whether it is about thin or duplicated content, navigation, or policy. A menu page that only reproduces a list of dishes is often the weak point. Adding genuinely useful detail for each restaurant helps: opening hours, delivery areas, dietary options, price range, location, and when the menu was last updated. That also gives visitors a reason to stay and act, rather than bouncing to another menu site.
Second, the Clarity comparison needs care. Clarity and an ad network do not measure the same thing, so a click recorded in one tool does not automatically mean a paid click in the other. Some placements are paid on views, some on other actions, and some interactions are filtered out. Before concluding there is a problem, compare the same placement over the same period, check whether the ad was actually viewable, and check for accidental clicks near navigation or menu items.
Third, think about intent before choosing another network. Someone searching for a specific menu is usually close to deciding where to eat, so a clearly labelled sponsored placement for a nearby restaurant, or a delivery or reservation referral that fits the visitor's area, is usually a better test than a generic ad unit. That only works if the traffic is local to the restaurant being promoted. With a small base of around 150 clicks, I would also be cautious about judging any network too quickly: fix the content and placement issues first, then test one change at a time so you can see what actually moved.
