Tools · Channel Mix Benchmark

Compare your channel mix with 379 B2B advertisers.

Enter your Google, LinkedIn and Meta split. See where it differs from B2B advertisers who sell to the same buyer the same way, and what their ad accounts show about click costs and lead quality.

Data: Primer, State of B2B Paid Advertising 2026.

01Who do you sell to?

The team or buyer type your product is sold to. Pick the one most of your pipeline comes from.

02How do you sell?

ABMYou target a named list of accounts.Demand GenYou generate leads from a broad audience.PLGPeople sign up for the product themselves.

03Your paid split

Google

The benchmark across all 379 advertisers

Fill in the three steps above to see your group, with your mix next to it.

Google68% of them run Google

42%

LinkedIn71% of them run LinkedIn

18%

Meta55% of them run Meta

Typical is the median: half the advertisers spend more of their paid budget on that platform, half spend less, counting those who don't run it as 0%. That is why the three typical shares don't add up to 100 and yours do. How you sell predicts the mix more than who you sell to: ABM advertisers put a median 30% on LinkedIn, Demand Gen advertisers 3%.

What the report found

Across all 379 advertisers. Once your three steps are in, these follow who you sell to, how you sell, and the platform you spend most on. Each card names the advertisers it counts.

All advertisers · 110 on LinkedIn4.4×LinkedIn reported 4.4 times the leads Primer could confirm, for the median advertiser. Meta 3.8 times, Google 1.2 times. Apr–Aug 2026.

All advertisers · pooled58%of LinkedIn's confirmed leads came through LinkedIn's own lead forms and never reached the advertiser's website. Apr–Aug 2026.

Advertisers running both platforms1.9×By the platforms' own counts, Meta's cost per lead is about a quarter of Google's (81 advertisers). Counted on confirmed leads it is 1.4 to 1.9 times Google's (57 advertisers).

All advertisers · pooled6.5 in 100website form fills could be confirmed as a fit for the advertiser's firmographic ICP. Only 29 in 100 could be checked at all; the rest are unknown, not misses.

Confirmed leads are the ones Primer could verify independently: website form fills, plus LinkedIn's own lead-form submissions. Platform-reported counts are what each ad platform claimed for itself. Primer data as published 6 Oct 2026; Sept 2025 to Aug 2026 unless a card says otherwise.