---
title: "What is a good CTR for B2B ads?"
url: https://metadata.io/resources/blog/what-is-a-good-ctr-for-b2b-ads
description: "B2B ad CTR ran 0.67% on LinkedIn, 0.79% on Facebook and 6.33% on Google Ads across 314 advertisers in Metadata's 2026 benchmark of $57.6M of 2025 spend."
source: metadata.io
---

On paid social the typical B2B advertiser ran a click-through rate between 0.65% and 0.79% in 2025. On Google Ads the same dataset shows 6.33%. Those two numbers should never be compared, and this page explains why.

## What is a good CTR for B2B ads?

**On paid social, between 0.65% and 0.79%.** LinkedIn ran 0.67% across 138 advertisers, Facebook 0.79% across 71, and Instagram 0.65% across 49. These are medians across advertisers for 2025 campaigns, not platform-reported averages.

If your paid social CTR sits in that band, it is normal. That is a less exciting answer than most published benchmarks give, and it is the one the data supports.

## Why is Google Ads CTR so much higher than LinkedIn?

**Because they measure different acts.** Google Ads ran 6.33% across 56 advertisers against LinkedIn’s 0.67% — roughly nine times higher. A search ad answers a question someone has already typed. A feed ad interrupts someone doing something else.

Holding social to a search benchmark is the single most common way a CTR comparison misdirects budget. The two belong in separate tables, which is why they are in separate rows below with the channel named.

## What every channel's CTR was in 2025

| Channel | CTR | Cost per click | CPM | Advertisers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Google Ads (search) | 6.33% | $9.76 | $617.91 | 56 |
| Facebook (social) | 0.79% | $1.95 | $15.50 | 71 |
| LinkedIn (social) | 0.67% | $9.39 | $63.19 | 138 |
| Instagram (social) | 0.65% | $2.82 | $18.25 | 49 |

Metadata 2026 B2B Paid Media Benchmark. Medians across advertisers, 2025 campaigns. Google’s CPM looks extreme because search impressions and feed impressions are not the same unit; read it alongside its CTR, or ignore it and read cost per click.

## Does a higher CTR mean more leads?

**No, and the gap is large.** On 2025 cold LinkedIn campaigns, document ads turned 10.6% of clicks into leads across 37 advertisers. Carousel ads turned 1.5% across 19.

| Ad format | Click-to-lead rate | Cost per lead | Advertisers |
|---|---|---|---|
| Document | 10.6% | $148 | 37 |
| Image | 4.7% | $177 | 99 |
| Video | 2.5% | $358 | 48 |
| Carousel | 1.5% | $617 | 19 |

Cold prospecting audiences on LinkedIn, 2025. Click-to-lead is leads divided by clicks, so it measures what happened after the click CTR was counting.

A campaign can win on CTR and lose on every metric that follows it. That is why CTR belongs on a diagnostic dashboard and not in a goal.

## How to use a CTR benchmark honestly

Compare within a channel, never across one. Compare medians to medians — if your figure is a spend-weighted average, one large campaign is setting it. And state the advertiser count, because a benchmark drawn from nine accounts is one company’s quarter wearing an industry label.

Then move on to the number CTR was standing in for. [What a LinkedIn lead actually cost](https://metadata.io/resources/blog/what-linkedin-ads-cost) and [what those leads paid back](https://metadata.io/benchmark-report-2026/insights/the-payback-floor) decide budget; click-through rate only tells you the ad was seen and clicked.

Every figure here is drawn from Metadata’s [2026 B2B Paid Media Benchmark](https://metadata.io/benchmark-report-2026), built on $57.6M of 2025 ad spend across 153 B2B advertisers, with every published number gated on a minimum advertiser count and a concentration cap. See also [why document ads convert](https://metadata.io/benchmark-report-2026/insights/document-ads-nobody-runs).