Flight log / Transmission 022

LinkedIn ads benchmarks, with receipts

Three public reports, three different LinkedIn CPCs: $3.94, €5.98 and $13.23. None of them is wrong. None of them is yours either.

Most LinkedIn ads benchmark posts share one flaw: numbers without receipts. A CTR with no year. A CPC with no sample. A "conversion rate" with no definition. You can't plan a budget on that, and you definitely can't defend one.

So here's the rule for this page. Every number carries a publisher, a date and a sample size when one exists. If we couldn't trace it, it didn't make the cut. After the table: why even good benchmarks mislead, and how to build the only one that matters. Yours.

What are the current LinkedIn ads benchmarks?

Where do LinkedIn benchmarks actually come from?

LinkedIn doesn't publish a full public benchmark table by industry. It drops format-level claims when it launches or promotes something, like the 13% Lead Gen Form figure or the Thought Leader Ads CTR comparison. Useful, but they are marketing for the format. Read them the way you'd read a car ad's mpg sticker.

Everything else comes from companies with a platform full of customer data:

• Reporting tools like AgencyAnalytics aggregate campaigns from the agencies that use them. Big sample, broad mix of industries and budgets.
• Attribution platforms like Dreamdata connect ad data to CRM revenue across their B2B customers. Fewer accounts, but they can measure pipeline and ROAS, not just clicks.
• ABM and analytics vendors like ZenABM analyze ad-level data from their customer base. Granular by format, narrower in who's included.

Each one is honest about what it measured. The trouble starts when a number gets lifted out of its report, loses its date, and lands in a slide deck as "the LinkedIn benchmark."

Why do LinkedIn ads benchmarks mislead?

Look at the CPC row again. $3.94, €5.98 and $13.23 for roughly the same thing. That spread isn't an error. It's the whole lesson.

The sample decides the answer

A reporting tool used by thousands of agencies includes a lot of small local and mid-market campaigns. An ABM vendor's customers skew toward tech companies targeting senior buyers at named accounts, which is the most contested and expensive inventory on the platform. Neither is "the market." Both are a market.

Definitions drift

CTR on one report may cover all Sponsored Content, on another one format. ROAS from an attribution vendor depends on its attribution model and on what its customers count as revenue. A "conversion rate" for Lead Gen Forms measures form opens to submits, which is a different event from a landing page visit to a form fill. Comparing them directly is comparing a jump shot to a free throw.

Time and currency move the number

Dreamdata's 2026 data, as PPC Land reported it, shows CPC up 11.8% and CPM jumping from €26.62 to €34.33 in one year. A benchmark from two years ago describes an auction that no longer exists. Currency matters too: euro and dollar figures aren't interchangeable, and most reports skew toward one region.

Selection bias is built in

Companies that pay for an attribution platform are more measurement-mature than average. Their ROAS is likely better than a team running LinkedIn with a pixel and hope. That doesn't make the number wrong. It makes it optimistic for most readers.

CTR isn't the outcome

ZenABM reported that, across its 2026 sample, CTR had a slightly negative correlation with pipeline generation (rho of minus 0.170). One vendor, one sample, and a weak correlation either way. But it fits the pattern that shows up in most B2B accounts: the ad with the highest CTR is often the one with the broadest, least qualified appeal.

How do LinkedIn ad formats compare on CTR and CPC?

Format-level data is where public benchmarks are most useful, because it compares formats within the same sample. From ZenABM's February 2026 report:

The gap between Thought Leader Ads and company-page formats lines up with LinkedIn's own claim of roughly 2X the CTR of comparable single image ads. Two independent sources pointing the same direction is worth more than either alone. We go deeper on that format in our thought leader ads guide.

Video's low CTR is expected: video is usually bought for views and awareness, not clicks. Judging it on CTR is like judging a billboard on how many people phoned the number.

What ROAS and pipeline numbers are public?

Dreamdata's 2026 report is the most cited source for LinkedIn revenue outcomes. Its headline numbers, published March 10, 2026:

• ROAS: LinkedIn 121%, Google Search 67%, Meta 51%.
• Cost per company influenced: LinkedIn €70.11, Google Search €110.37, Meta €128.70.
• Average B2B customer journey: 272 days, up from 211.
• First LinkedIn impression to revenue: 281 days on average.

Two things to hold onto. First, this is multi-touch attribution across Dreamdata's customers, not a controlled experiment. Second, a 281 day impression-to-revenue lag means a 30 day LinkedIn test can't show you ROAS at all. If you're judging the channel on last-click revenue inside a quarter, you're measuring the wrong thing. Our cross-channel attribution guide covers how to read multi-touch numbers without fooling yourself.

How do you set your own LinkedIn ads baseline?

Your account's history beats any public benchmark, because it has your audience, your offer and your sales cycle baked in. Here's the build.

1. Pull 60 to 90 days. Shorter windows are noisy. Longer ones start mixing in old creative and old auction prices.
2. Split before you average. Break results out by objective, format and audience type (for example, ABM list vs. job title targeting vs. retargeting). A blended account CTR hides everything useful.
3. Use medians and ranges. One viral ad or one dud campaign will drag an average around. Record the median and the middle 50%.
4. Pick one pipeline metric. Cost per qualified lead, cost per sales-accepted lead or cost per opportunity. Whatever your CRM can tie back reliably.
5. Note the context. Budget level, audience size, offer type and season. A baseline set during a big launch won't hold in a quiet quarter.
6. Re-baseline quarterly. Dreamdata's figures, via PPC Land, put LinkedIn CPM up about 29% in a single year. A baseline that never moves is a fossil.

Then use public benchmarks the right way: as a sanity check. If your single image CTR is 0.1% while three reports sit near 0.4%, something is off with targeting or creative. If you're at 0.45%, stop comparing and start testing.

Once the baseline exists, the useful question shifts from "are we above average?" to "did this change move our number?" That's an experiment, and our incrementality testing guide shows how to run one. For where LinkedIn sits in the wider plan, see the B2B paid social strategy pillar.

Where this breaks

Using an old benchmark in a fresh auction is like reading a sports almanac from the wrong timeline: the numbers look precise and describe a world you're not in. Some honest limits on everything above:

• No public, independent, audited LinkedIn benchmark exists. Every source here is a vendor reporting on its own customers.
• Industry splits are thin. Most reports offer a handful of industries. Yours may not be one of them.
• Post-click conversion rates are mostly missing. Public reports cover clicks and revenue, but rarely the landing page step in between, which is where a lot of LinkedIn spend quietly leaks.
• LinkedIn's own figures age. The 13% Lead Gen Form number has been quoted for years. Treat it as history, not a target.

FAQ