"Which channel should we run?" is the wrong first question. The channels aren't competing to do the same job better, they do different jobs. Pick by the job you need done, and the answer is usually obvious.
The one line that separates them:
- Google captures demand that already exists. Someone is searching, you show up.
- Meta creates demand among people who weren't looking. You interrupt the right interests with something worth stopping for.
- LinkedIn targets identity. You reach the exact job title, company, and seniority, whether or not they're in-market today.
The comparison, side by side
We've kept cost relative rather than quoting figures. Published CPC and CPM benchmarks come from third-party aggregators and swing wildly by industry and geography, so the durable truth is the ranking, not a number.
| Google Ads | Meta Ads | LinkedIn Ads | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Core job | Capture existing demand | Create demand | Reach a specific person |
| Buyer intent | High, actively searching | Low to none, scrolling | Low, but exactly the right role |
| Targeted by | Keywords / search terms | Interests & behaviors | Job title, company, seniority, industry |
| Cost per click | Mid, varies widely by industry | Lowest of the three | Highest of the three |
| Cost per 1,000 views | Varies by network | Lowest | Highest |
| Funnel role | Bottom (capture) | Top & retargeting | Top & mid, account-based |
| Best for | Anyone with search demand; lead-gen & e-comm | B2C & D2C e-comm; visual products; retargeting | High-ACV B2B; specific roles/industries |
| Weakest at | Creating demand where none is searched | Precise B2B role targeting (inferred, leaky) | Cheap volume; low-ticket offers |
| Creative | Text, shopping, some video | Video & image first, thumb-stopping | Professional, document & single-image |
A framework for choosing
Run through these in order. The first "yes" is usually your starting channel.
- Are people already searching for what you sell? Start with Google. Capturing existing intent is the cheapest demand you will ever buy, and it tells you fast whether the offer converts. If nobody searches for your category, Google Search has little to capture, and you have a demand-creation problem, not a channel problem. (We cover that trap in search ads don't create demand.)
- Is it visual, consumer, or impulse-friendly? Lean Meta. It's the cheapest way to put a compelling creative in front of a huge, interest-targeted audience, and the best retargeting engine for anyone who visited but didn't buy.
- Is the buyer a specific role at a specific kind of company, and worth a lot? LinkedIn earns its premium when the deal size justifies an expensive click. For a $200 product it rarely does; for a $50k contract it easily can.
- Do you have proof the offer converts yet? If not, start on the highest-intent channel you qualify for (usually Google) so you learn on warm traffic, not cold.
The mistake to avoid: spreading thin
The most common error we see is running all three at once on a budget that can't feed any of them. Every channel's algorithm needs a steady stream of conversions to learn; split a small budget three ways and all three stay stuck in learning, forever. Start on the one channel that matches where your buyers already are, prove it converts, then layer the next one deliberately. One channel working beats three channels guessing.
It's one of the most frequent things we untangle on calls. A founder recently walked in spreading a five-figure budget across Google, LinkedIn, X, and cold outreach at the same time, and getting nowhere on any of them. Nothing was wrong with the channels. The budget was too thin, per channel, for any of them to learn. Concentrated on the single channel where the buyers actually were, the same money started producing leads.
The right answer is often a sequence, not a single pick: capture the intent that exists on Google, create more of it on Meta or LinkedIn, and retarget everyone who engaged. But you earn the second channel by making the first one work.
Go deeper on each matchup
Each pairing has its own tradeoffs. The detailed head-to-heads:
- Google Ads vs Meta Ads: intent vs interruption, the two channels most businesses actually choose between.
- Meta Ads vs LinkedIn Ads: cheap reach vs precise targeting for B2B.
- Google Ads vs LinkedIn Ads: capturing intent vs targeting identity in B2B.
The takeaways
- Google captures existing demand, Meta creates it, LinkedIn targets the specific person. Pick by the job.
- Meta has the cheapest clicks, LinkedIn the most expensive, Google the highest intent, cheapest clicks ≠ cheapest customers.
- LinkedIn's premium is worth it only when deal size justifies the click; for low-ticket offers it rarely does.
- Don't split a small budget across all three. Start where your buyers are, prove it, then layer.
Common questions
Which is best for B2B, Google, Meta or LinkedIn?
It depends on the stage. Google Search captures B2B buyers already looking for a solution and usually returns the lowest cost per qualified lead. LinkedIn reaches the exact job titles and companies but at the highest cost per click of the three, so it suits high-value, considered purchases. Meta is the cheapest reach and works for B2B retargeting and top-of-funnel demand, less so for cold prospecting by role.
Which channel is cheapest?
Meta has the lowest cost per click by far. Google sits in the middle and varies widely by industry. LinkedIn is the most expensive click, commonly several times Meta's, because its inventory is smaller and its targeting is premium. Cheapest clicks and cheapest customers are not the same thing, though: the right channel is the one that wins on cost per qualified outcome, not cost per click.
Can I run all three channels at once?
You can, but rarely should on a small budget. Each channel needs enough conversion volume to learn, and splitting a thin budget across three starves all of them. Start on the one that matches where your buyers already are, prove it, then layer the next channel deliberately.
Which is best for e-commerce?
For most direct-to-consumer e-commerce, Meta and Google carry the load: Meta creates demand with visual, interest-based prospecting and retargeting, and Google captures the resulting search and shopping intent. LinkedIn is rarely the right fit for consumer e-commerce.