In a fresh analysis that will make marketing directors think twice before writing off LinkedIn as simply too pricey, new benchmarking shows the picture is more nuanced than the platform’s reputation suggests. The data, compiled by Emily Wood for Search Engine Land, compares more than $700,000 in LinkedIn spend with matched Google Ads accounts over the 12 months to May 2026. The result is a reminder that raw cost-per-click tells only part of the story when you are buying professional attention. See the full study here.
What the numbers actually say
LinkedIn’s blended average cost per click across objectives was $11.12, while Google’s blended figure was $5.45. At first glance that looks like LinkedIn costs roughly twice as much per click. But a closer, apples-to-apples comparison narrows the gap. When you compare Google non-branded search – the channel that captures new, high-intent buyers – the average CPC was $12.48. Matched LinkedIn prospecting campaigns with lead generation, website conversion, or website visit objectives averaged $13.94. That is not free, but it is a far smaller premium than the headline comparison implies. Read the original piece by Emily Wood at Search Engine Land.
Why campaign objective changes everything
The study breaks LinkedIn CPCs down by objective and reveals a wide spread:
– Website visits: $6.75
– Brand awareness: $8.34
– Website conversions: $4.84
– Engagement: $4.45
– Lead generation: $31.29
– Video views: $71.43
Lead generation and video views register much higher CPCs, yet both tend to deliver different KPI profiles – higher conversion rates or different unit economics – so treating CPC in isolation is misleading. For video campaigns, cost per view is usually the relevant metric, not CPC. For lead gen, the higher click cost can be offset by stronger conversion and lead quality. LinkedIn’s own ads documentation is useful for understanding which optimisation objective matches your commercial goals.
Industry matters – and sample sizes do too
Two industry groups dominated the dataset: B2B SaaS (about 97 percent of spend) and professional services. Average LinkedIn CPCs were:
– B2B SaaS: $11.02 (on roughly $681,000 spend)
– Professional services: $15.25 (on roughly $23,000 spend)
The gap reflects both targeting precision and the mix of objectives used. Professional services campaigns tended to use narrower targeting and paid more per click, while the much larger B2B SaaS sample included a broader assortment of objectives. That difference underlines a practical point for Irish and European marketers: sector and targeting choices often move costs more than the platform itself.
Practical budget thresholds
The analysis gives a pragmatic budgeting framework that will resonate with finance-minded marketing leaders:
– Minimum viable: $3,000 to $5,000 per month. Below this you will struggle to get meaningful test volume.
– Testing and learning: $5,000 to $10,000 per month. Enough to run multiple objectives and generate statistically useful results.
– Scaling: $10,000 plus per month. Enables simultaneous brand and direct-response activity at scale.
For firms with average contract values above $20,000, the author argues it often makes sense to accept relatively high CPLs, because a single closed deal can justify significant ad spend. That is a distinctly market-savvy, ROI-first argument that CFOs will appreciate.
Channel mix recommendation
The clearest commercial takeaway is not to treat platforms as mutually exclusive. The recommended approach is:
– Use Google Ads and Microsoft Ads for intent capture. Non-branded search catches buyers actively researching solutions, and branded search plus remarketing are low-cost essentials.
– Use LinkedIn Ads for audience-led demand generation when your ideal customer profile is narrowly defined – for example, senior decision-makers at mid-market technology firms.
– Run both channels in parallel so Google captures existing demand and LinkedIn builds demand and shapes consideration earlier in the buyer journey. Google Ads official resources provide guidance on structuring intent-driven campaigns.
What marketers in Ireland should take from this
A few practical, slightly contrarian points for Irish senior marketers and owners:
– Do not dismiss LinkedIn simply on headline CPCs. Consider the commercial outcome you need – pipeline value and conversion economics matter far more than raw clicks.
– Be disciplined about targeting. Narrow, executive-level audiences cost more. Make sure the lifetime value and sales process can sustain that investment.
– Test with adequate budget. Spending too little produces noisy data that encourages bad decisions. The study’s minimum budget guidance is a sensible rule of thumb.
– Track outcomes, not vanity metrics. High CPCs on lead gen are defensible when lead quality and win rates justify the cost.
A critical view, but a pragmatic one
The study by Emily Wood at Search Engine Land is a useful reality check for marketers tempted to make platform choices based on price alone. It demonstrates that when you match for intent and audience, LinkedIn may be expensive but not prohibitively so. For firms that prize precise access to professional decision-makers, the premium can be an investment rather than a cost. Read the full analysis on Search Engine Land and consult LinkedIn’s marketing solutions pages for tactical setup and objectives.
