Benchmark · 2025 data · updated 2026-09-11
LinkedIn vs Facebook vs Instagram ads for B2B: the head-to-head numbers
The three paid social channels on one table, from B2B advertisers running them in 2025: $57.6M of measured spend across 153 advertisers, with closed-won revenue traced back to the ads. No email gate. The method is published and the dataset is available. Until 2026-09-11 this URL carried a 90-day snapshot from mid-2024; every figure below supersedes it.
Which paid social channel is cheapest for B2B leads?
Instagram, at $138 per lead in 2025, then Facebook at $145 and LinkedIn at $202. Google Ads, the paid search comparison, sits at $524. The LinkedIn row is drawn from 138 advertisers, the widest sample in the set.
| Channel | Cost per lead | Cost per click | Cost per thousand impressions | Click-through rate | Click to lead conversion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| $202 | $9.39 | $63.19 | 0.67% | 5.9% | |
| $145 | $1.95 | $15.50 | 0.79% | 2.6% | |
| $138 | $2.82 | $18.25 | 0.65% | 4.0% |
Read CPM within the channel type only. A feed impression on LinkedIn and one on Facebook are comparable units; a search impression is not, which is why Google Ads is kept off this table and on the cross-channel benchmarks page.
Is LinkedIn or Facebook better for B2B ads?
Facebook is cheaper per lead ($145 against $202) and per click ($1.95 against $9.39). LinkedIn converts more of its clicks: 5.9% become leads against 2.6% on Facebook. Neither number decides a budget on its own.
Inside lead-generation campaigns the gap is wider still: a LinkedIn click costs $11.90 against $3.80 on Facebook, and the lead-gen conversion rates hold at 5.9% and 2.6%. The number that should decide the split is what a customer cost, and that exists for only one of the two channels: a LinkedIn lead became a $58,572 customer. The LinkedIn page carries the p10-to-p90 spread; the Meta page splits Facebook from Instagram.
Which channel has the best click-through rate for B2B?
Facebook, at 0.79%, then LinkedIn at 0.67% and Instagram at 0.65%. The whole spread is 14 basis points. Click-through is a within-channel creative metric, not a cross-channel scorecard: Google Ads runs 6.33% because the click follows a typed intent.
The practical reading: judge creative on CTR against its own channel's number, and judge the channel on cost per lead and, where it exists, cost per customer. A team moving budget between LinkedIn and Facebook on a 0.12-point CTR difference is moving it on noise.
Is retargeting cheaper than prospecting on paid social?
Only on Facebook. Retargeting there costs $120 per lead against $166 for prospecting. On LinkedIn the pattern inverts: $234 retargeting against $194 prospecting. A warm audience is not automatically a cheap one.
| Channel | Prospecting | Retargeting |
|---|---|---|
| $166 | $120 | |
| $194 | $234 |
No Instagram prospecting-versus-retargeting cut is published in this dataset. Across all channels, demand-creation (cold) campaigns produced leads at $187 and retargeting at $196, from 105 and 85 advertisers.
Which ad format produces the cheapest leads on each channel?
Document ads on LinkedIn, at $142 per lead against $200 for image, $265 for video and $362 for conversation ads. On Facebook, image at $136 against $225 for video. Video is the dearest format on both channels.
| Format | ||
|---|---|---|
| Image | $200 | $136 |
| Video | $265 | $225 |
| Document | $142 | not offered |
| Conversation | $362 | not offered |
Document ads also convert best of any LinkedIn format, at 11.9% of clicks, and hold only 8.5% of cold-audience spend.
Does Instagram work for B2B advertising?
On lead cost, yes: $138 per lead, the cheapest of the three, at a 4.0% click-to-lead rate that beats Facebook's 2.6%. Cold Instagram audiences run $153 per lead across 37 advertisers. What is not published is what an Instagram customer cost, so the channel is priced to the lead, not to revenue.
| Channel | Cost per lead | Click to lead conversion | Advertisers |
|---|---|---|---|
| $194 | 6.6% | 94 | |
| $166 | 2.5% | 59 | |
| $153 | 3.9% | 37 |
For how to run Facebook and Instagram on these numbers, with the audience and format cuts, see Meta ads for B2B: what Facebook and Instagram actually deliver.
Does the cheapest lead make the cheapest customer?
Not here. LinkedIn's $202 lead became a $58,572 customer, on 10.2x of sourced pipeline per dollar, against $31,939 and 7.97x across the 90 advertisers followed into the CRM.
The wider finding is the blank itself. Of 132 advertisers running lead-generation spend, 42 had no closed-won revenue traceable to their ads at all. A cheap lead on any of the three channels tells you what the form fill cost; it does not tell you whether the channel closes. The cost-per-lead illusion page works through the arithmetic channel by channel.
How were these numbers calculated?
Spend-weighted aggregates across B2B advertisers who ran each channel in 2025, with revenue counted only where the ad-generated lead opened the deal. Cuts below the publication thresholds are left out. The full method names the rules and the dataset is CC BY 4.0.
This URL previously carried a 90-day snapshot covering June to August 2024. Those figures were retired on 2026-09-11 and replaced by the full-year 2025 dataset above, so that every Instagram, Facebook and LinkedIn number on this domain agrees with the B2B advertising benchmarks page and the LinkedIn cost post.