What does a B2B ad click cost on Google, LinkedIn and Meta?

What did a click cost on each platform in the newest datasets?

It depends on who measured it. In dollars, LinkedIn averaged $9.39, Google Ads $6.50 to $9.76, and Meta $1.95 to $2.82, while Dreamdata reports 5.98 euros for LinkedIn and 1.60 euros for Meta.

CPC, or cost per click, is what you pay each time someone clicks your ad. Metadata's 2025 benchmark of 153 B2B advertisers covers $57.6M in spend and 211,000 leads, and it is the only dataset here that prices all four platforms. Its LinkedIn and Google Ads clicks are 37 cents apart, close enough that we would call them the same price.

42 Agency's page, updated April 2026, lists no CPC for LinkedIn or Meta, and Dreamdata's 2026 LinkedIn Ads report gives no Google average.

Why do two B2B benchmarks for Google Ads differ by a factor of two?

Mostly because of which searches get counted. A non-brand click in PipeRocket's accounts cost $13.75, about twice 42 Agency's $6.50 average and PipeRocket's own blended $6.81.

Brand search means someone typed your company's name, and non-brand means they typed the problem or the category, where you bid against everyone else selling into it. PipeRocket's research across 53+ B2B SaaS accounts puts brand at $3.12 and non-brand at $13.75, and it reports the middle-of-the-pack account rather than total spend.

An account that spends mostly on its own name will look cheap against any benchmark, and moving that money into non-brand search raises the average with no change in how well the account is run. Our post on bidding on your own brand name covers that choice.

The mix may not explain everything. For SaaS in general, 42 Agency lists $2 to $8, which holds PipeRocket's blended $6.81 and misses its non-brand $13.75 by a wide margin. We cannot tell from the figures we have whether that range is a blend as well.

Why does the click price matter less than the cost per lead?

Because clicks at almost the same price can bring leads at very different prices. The LinkedIn and Google clicks 37 cents apart in Metadata's data came with leads at $202 and $524.

Put $1,000 through Metadata's averages and you get about 106 LinkedIn clicks or about 102 Google clicks, then about five LinkedIn leads or about two Google leads. That arithmetic is ours and rough, since different advertisers sit behind each row.

Facebook's $1.95 click came with a $145 lead. Instagram's $2.82 click came with a $138 lead.

The order of the platforms does not travel between datasets either. 42 Agency lists cost per lead at $120 for Google and $276 for LinkedIn, the reverse of Metadata, with $85 for Meta. Our post on LinkedIn cost per lead goes further into that platform. Alongside Corvan AI, we run paid ads for clients, and we size a budget from your own cost per lead as soon as you have one.

Which of these figures are too old or too thin to plan a budget on?

We would drop WordStream's $3.33 B2B row first, because it rests on client data first collected in 2015. Among the newer figures, we trust thin samples and undated rows least.

Metadata's page treats that row as outdated, and many pages still repeat it. We could not open WordStream's own page, so that is Metadata's account.

Thin is a judgment call. Metadata's Instagram row rests on 49 advertisers and its Google row on 56, against 138 for LinkedIn. Dreamdata's page does not state its data window, so we cannot say which months its euros describe. PipeRocket and 42 Agency report accounts they run, Dreamdata its customers' data, and Metadata sells B2B ad software, so we read each as one company's view of B2B advertising.

For a first budget we would pick the row closest to what you plan to buy and expect your own clicks to land somewhere else, since none of these companies can say what yours will cost.

Every figure we quote here stops at the lead. How many of those $202 and $524 leads became customers is what a founder wants to know, and it is not in any number above.