If you’re in B2B marketing, choosing between LinkedIn and Facebook depends on your goals. LinkedIn excels at targeting decision-makers in a professional context, while Facebook offers broader reach and cost-effective brand awareness. Here’s a quick breakdown:
- LinkedIn:
- Drives 80% of B2B leads.
- Higher lead quality and conversion rates (2.74% visitor-to-lead vs. Facebook’s 0.77%).
- Best for targeting professionals by job title, industry, or company size.
- Higher costs: CPC ranges from $5.50–$9.50, but leads often yield larger deal values ($85,000+).
- Facebook:
- Massive audience (3 billion users) with lower ad costs (CPC: $1.50–$3.50).
- Ideal for top-of-funnel campaigns and retargeting.
- Lower lead quality but great for products under $10,000 or shorter sales cycles.
Quick Comparison
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Visitor-to-Lead Conversion Rate | 2.74% | 0.77% |
| Cost-per-Click (CPC) | $5.50–$9.50 | $1.50–$3.50 |
| Decision-Maker Reach | 4 in 5 members | Mixed audience |
| Audience Size | 930 million users | 3 billion users |
| Best Use Case | High-value B2B leads | Broad awareness |
Key Takeaway: Use LinkedIn for precise targeting and high-value leads. Leverage Facebook for cost-efficient awareness and retargeting. Many marketers combine both platforms for a balanced approach.
LinkedIn vs Facebook B2B Marketing: Key Metrics Comparison
€1 Million on B2B Ads: LinkedIn vs. Meta Results
Lead Generation Performance: LinkedIn vs Facebook
LinkedIn significantly outshines Facebook when it comes to converting visitors into leads. LinkedIn boasts a visitor-to-lead conversion rate of 2.74%, which is a staggering 277% higher than Facebook’s 0.77% [11][12][14]. The gap becomes even more pronounced deeper in the sales funnel, with LinkedIn’s Marketing Qualified Lead (MQL) to Sales Qualified Lead (SQL) conversion rate averaging between 15-20%, compared to Facebook’s 8-12% [10].
"LinkedIn generated the highest visitor-to-lead conversion rate at 2.74%, almost 3x higher (277%) than both Twitter (.69%) and Facebook (.77%)." – Rebecca Corliss, HubSpot [14]
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Visitor-to-Lead Conversion | 2.74% | 0.77% |
| MQL to SQL Conversion | 15-20% | 8-12% |
| Lead Gen Form Completion | 30-50% | 20-40% |
| Average Time Engaging with Business Content | 2-3 minutes | 30-45 seconds |
Conversion Rates and Lead Quality
LinkedIn’s superior lead quality can be attributed to how its users interact with the platform. On average, users spend 2-3 minutes engaging with business content on LinkedIn, compared to just 30-45 seconds on Facebook [10]. This longer engagement time indicates that LinkedIn users are more deliberate, often researching solutions, while Facebook users tend to scroll passively.
Campaign results further illustrate this point. A Singapore-based enterprise software company conducted parallel campaigns in 2025. LinkedIn generated 138 leads at $68 per lead, with a 27% conversion rate to SQLs. Meanwhile, Facebook produced 312 leads at just $30 per lead, but only 8% became qualified opportunities. When factoring in conversions, the cost per qualified opportunity was $252 on LinkedIn versus $375 on Facebook [10].
LinkedIn Lead Gen Forms play a key role in this performance by pre-filling profile data, streamlining the process for users. These forms achieve completion rates of 30-50%, compared to Facebook’s 20-40% [10]. Additionally, LinkedIn offers access to 65 million decision-makers, with 4 out of 5 members actively involved in business decisions [10][13].
On the other hand, Facebook can improve its lead quality with some strategic tweaks. For example, adding 2-3 qualification questions to Facebook Lead Ads can boost lead quality by up to 40%, though this approach may reduce the overall number of leads [10]. This strategy works particularly well for small-to-medium enterprises (SMEs) with quicker sales cycles.
These insights lay the groundwork for comparing costs across these platforms.
Cost Per Lead Comparison
Facebook’s average Cost-per-Lead (CPL) of $25-$45 is lower than LinkedIn’s $55-$75 [10]. Facebook also offers a more affordable entry point, with a Cost-per-Click (CPC) of $1.50-$3.50, compared to LinkedIn’s $5.50-$9.50 [10].
However, the story changes when you calculate the cost per qualified opportunity. A Malaysian productivity tool company targeting a lower-value market segment found this out firsthand. LinkedIn generated 85 leads at $52 per lead, with a 10% conversion rate to paid customers. Facebook, on the other hand, delivered 310 leads at $24 each but only converted 8% to paid customers. The final customer acquisition cost was $300 on Facebook versus $520 on LinkedIn, making Facebook more cost-effective for their lower-priced product [10].
This comparison highlights how platform choice depends heavily on the type of product being sold. LinkedIn is ideal for high-value enterprise solutions, while Facebook is better suited for products priced under $10,000 with shorter sales cycles [10].
Next, we’ll explore how targeting options can further refine your platform strategy.
Audience Targeting Options
When it comes to targeting audiences, LinkedIn and Facebook each bring unique strengths to the table. LinkedIn relies on its first-party professional data – think job titles, company names, seniority levels, and industries – to deliver highly precise targeting. On the other hand, Facebook leans on interest-based data, user activity, and behavioral signals. For instance, if you’re trying to reach IT professionals on Facebook, you might combine interests like "Computer Programming" with an education filter such as "College Graduate" to narrow your audience effectively[1].
For Account-Based Marketing (ABM), LinkedIn has a clear edge. Its ability to upload specific company lists and directly target decision-makers sets it apart. Facebook’s "Employer" field, while available, often includes outdated or incomplete information. This is likely one reason LinkedIn commands 32% of all B2B display ad spending, despite its smaller user base[5].
"LinkedIn really is the best platform for B2B audience targeting, due to its professional nature and robust user data. It allows advertisers to reach a highly engaged and relevant audience based on job titles, industries, company sizes and a lot more."
– Crystal King, Social Media Professor, HubSpot [16]
Facebook, however, shines in other areas. It offers 98 different data points for targeting[15], though many of these are centered on personal interests rather than professional attributes. Its standout feature is "Lookalike Audiences", which uses its massive user base to identify prospects similar to your existing customers. Retargeting is another area where Facebook simplifies the process – you only need 20 website visitors to create a custom audience, compared to LinkedIn’s requirement of 300[15].
Here’s a quick comparison of key targeting parameters:
| Targeting Parameter | LinkedIn Capability | Facebook Capability |
|---|---|---|
| Job Title | High precision; verified by user profiles | Available, but often less accurate or outdated |
| Company Name | Direct targeting for ABM | Limited; relies on "Employer" field data |
| Seniority/Function | Native filters (e.g., C-level, Director) | Not a native filter; uses interest proxies |
| Industry | Highly accurate via company pages | Available, but data quality varies |
| Interests | Professional interests and member groups | Wide-ranging; based on clicks, likes, and behaviors |
| Lookalikes | "Audience Expansion" based on professional traits | "Lookalike Audiences" leveraging behavioral data |
| Retargeting | Requires 300 visitors | Requires only 20 visitors |
These differences highlight how each platform supports distinct marketing strategies. For precision-driven ABM, LinkedIn is the go-to choice, especially when targeting specific roles like CFOs or HR managers. Its email list matching also performs well with work email addresses, achieving match rates of 60–75%[2]. Facebook, in contrast, is better suited for top-of-funnel awareness campaigns and building expansive remarketing pools. Its strength lies in matching personal email addresses, making it a strong contender for broader audience engagement.
LinkedIn: Professional Targeting
LinkedIn leverages its vast database of professional information to offer marketers highly refined audience targeting. With filters like job title, job function, seniority (from entry-level to C-suite), industry, company size, and even specific degrees or fields of study, LinkedIn allows you to connect with audiences based on their professional identity rather than relying on behavioral patterns [1][17].
This level of precision becomes especially clear when comparing LinkedIn to other platforms. For instance, when targeting IT professionals in Singapore, Facebook’s "industry" filter identified just 13,200 individuals – only about 10% of LinkedIn’s 110,674 professionals in the same category [8]. A key reason for LinkedIn’s accuracy is that users keep their profiles updated to ensure they don’t miss out on career opportunities or valuable connections [3].
For account-based marketing, LinkedIn offers a feature called "Account Targeting." This tool cross-references your company lists with over 8 million LinkedIn Pages [17]. By layering criteria such as job function, seniority, and company size, you can directly target decision-makers. With over 65 million members in decision-making roles and 89% of B2B marketers using the platform for lead generation, LinkedIn has become an essential tool for B2B campaigns [9][17].
"LinkedIn is the best platform for targeting by job title, industry and company size."
– Anthon Blatner, Speedwork Social [1]
One of LinkedIn’s strengths lies in its "professional mode." Users approach the platform with a business-first mindset, making them more open to business-related messages [1][17]. This professional focus plays a significant role in its success, as 62% of B2B marketers report that LinkedIn generates leads at more than double the rate of any other social platform [17]. These targeting capabilities make LinkedIn the go-to choice for high-quality B2B campaigns.
Facebook: Interest and Behavior Targeting
Facebook offers a wealth of targeting options, enhanced by its ability to tap into detailed behavioral data. By tracking user actions like page likes, content interactions, and even website visits, Facebook builds a nuanced understanding of user interests – without requiring them to maintain a professional profile [15][3].
The platform’s algorithm automatically tags interests based on user activity. Unlike LinkedIn, which relies on self-reported professional profiles, Facebook identifies professionals who may not actively update their LinkedIn profiles but still engage with industry-related content [15].
"Facebook is the king when it comes to social advertising… the interest-based targeting is quite sophisticated, especially when paired with existing customer data and lookalike audiences."
– Takeshi Young, DiDi [1]
Marketers often combine multiple targeting filters to fine-tune their audience. For example, pairing interest categories like Computer Programming with demographic filters such as College Graduate ensures campaigns reach professionals rather than hobbyists [8]. In the U.S., this method can identify around 5.8 million users interested in computer programming with college degrees – outpacing LinkedIn’s 4.3 million software and IT professionals [8]. Facebook’s Lookalike Audiences feature further expands reach by finding users who share traits with your best customers, enabling you to scale campaigns effectively [4][15]. Additionally, Facebook’s retargeting capabilities are highly accessible, requiring just 20 website visitors to launch a remarketing campaign, compared to LinkedIn’s minimum of 300. This makes it easier to re-engage users who’ve already interacted with your brand [15].
Cost efficiency is another major advantage. Facebook’s average CPC is just $0.35, significantly lower than LinkedIn’s $5.58. With 3 billion monthly active users spending an average of 33 minutes daily on the platform, Facebook delivers extensive, cost-effective top-of-funnel reach [15][3]. While Facebook accounts for only 7% of B2B leads compared to LinkedIn’s 80%, its lead-to-opportunity conversion rate of 2.86% slightly surpasses LinkedIn’s 2.72% [2][7]. These factors make Facebook a powerful tool for high-volume, budget-friendly campaigns.
sbb-itb-8725941
Cost Structure and ROI Analysis
Cost-per-Click and Cost-per-Impression Rates
When it comes to advertising costs, Facebook offers a much more budget-friendly option compared to LinkedIn. For traffic campaigns, Facebook’s average cost-per-click (CPC) is $0.70, while lead generation campaigns average around $1.92. On the other hand, LinkedIn’s CPC for B2B campaigns ranges between $5.26 and $10.00, making it about 3 to 5 times higher [20][4][22][2].
The same disparity is visible in cost-per-thousand-impressions (CPM) rates. Facebook’s CPM typically falls between $4.00 and $5.00, whereas LinkedIn commands a hefty $50.00 to $65.00 per thousand impressions [18]. This means advertisers on Facebook can secure 55 million additional impressions for less than half the cost [2]. Recent data highlights a 35% year-over-year drop in Facebook’s CPMs, coupled with a 10% increase in click-through rates. In contrast, LinkedIn’s CPMs have risen 48% year-over-year as of 2024/2025 [18].
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| CPC (Traffic) | $0.70 [20] | $5.26–$10.00 [22][2] |
| CPC (Leads) | $1.92 [20] | <$10.00 target [2] |
| CPM | $4.00–$5.00 [18] | $50.00–$65.00 [18] |
| CPL | $27.66 [20] | $125.71+ [2][21] |
These cost differences highlight the affordability of Facebook, but the story doesn’t end there – ROI metrics reveal a more nuanced picture.
ROI for B2B Campaigns
Despite LinkedIn’s higher costs, its performance in B2B campaigns often justifies the investment. LinkedIn Ads deliver an average ROI between 192% and 229%, while Facebook Ads typically hover around 87%, often falling below break-even [21]. Additionally, LinkedIn boasts a stronger MQL-to-SQL conversion rate of 14–18%, compared to Facebook’s 5–10%, and a lower closed-deal cost of $3,750 versus Facebook’s $4,800 [21].
A 2024 benchmark report by Dreamdata further underscores LinkedIn’s efficiency. The platform had the lowest cost per company influenced among major ad networks, achieving a return on ad spend (ROAS) of 113%, compared to Facebook’s 29%. Moreover, Facebook and Google Search Ads were found to be 76% more expensive than LinkedIn per company influenced [6]. Metadata.io‘s 2021 analysis of $42 million in ad spend across 75,000 campaigns revealed that while Facebook’s CPC was lower, its Cost per Lead and Cost per Opportunity were at least 30% higher than LinkedIn’s [2][19].
"B2B companies often find LinkedIn’s expensive leads worth 5-10x Facebook leads in actual revenue."
– Devebyte [22]
The real value lies in the strategy. Leads generated on LinkedIn tend to result in higher deal values, averaging between $85,000 and $125,000, compared to Facebook’s $35,000 to $75,000 [21]. For businesses aiming to see meaningful B2B results, it’s recommended to allocate monthly budgets of $1,000 to $5,000 for Facebook and $5,000 to $15,000 for LinkedIn [22].
User Intent and Platform Context
LinkedIn: Professional Mindset
LinkedIn’s high conversion rates are no accident – they’re rooted in the platform’s professional focus. Users log in with a "business-first" mindset, seeking content related to professional growth, industry trends, and solutions for their work challenges. This environment makes B2B advertising feel like a natural extension of the platform, rather than a disruption.
"When people are on LinkedIn, they’re already in ‘professional mode.’ They are expecting to see posts about their professional life" – Liam Carnahan, Inkwell Content Services [1]
Here’s a key stat: Around 80% of LinkedIn members are involved in business decision-making within their companies [10]. This intent-driven behavior fosters meaningful engagement, as users often visit the platform to research and discover actionable insights rather than mindlessly scroll. This active participation is one reason LinkedIn boasts a visitor-to-lead conversion rate of 2.74% – a staggering 277% higher than Facebook’s 0.77% [11][12][14].
Facebook: Casual Browsing Behavior
Facebook users, on the other hand, approach the platform with a completely different mindset. Spending about 35 minutes daily on the site [3], they’re primarily there to connect with friends, consume entertaining content, and relax. This shift in intent means that B2B advertisers need to adapt their messaging to align with the platform’s laid-back vibe. Chris Wilks from BrandExtract highlights this contrast:
"LinkedIn is a platform specifically designed for business/professional interactions, so when connecting with prospects there, they don’t feel like we’re intruding on their personal space" – Chris Wilks, BrandExtract [1]
Take this example: A 2025 Malaysian SaaS company targeting small businesses found Facebook’s casual tone more effective for its audience. Their campaign generated 310 leads with an 8% conversion rate to paid accounts at a $300 customer acquisition cost. Meanwhile, LinkedIn’s more formal atmosphere yielded only 85 leads, with a higher $520 CAC. The lesson? On Facebook, success often hinges on crafting conversational, visually engaging, and story-driven ads that resonate with users in a more personal setting.
| Feature | LinkedIn (Professional Mindset) | Facebook (Casual Browsing) |
|---|---|---|
| Primary User Goal | Networking & Industry Research | Entertainment & Socializing |
| Avg. Engagement Time | 2–3 minutes [10] | 30–45 seconds [10] |
| MQL to SQL Rate | 15–20% [10] | 8–12% [10] |
| Content Preference | Technical, Long-form, Educational | Visual, Emotional, Story-driven |
| Decision Maker Reach | 4 in 5 members [10] | Mixed with general audience |
These stark differences in user behavior and intent underscore why tailoring campaigns to each platform’s unique environment is critical for driving results.
Case Studies: Campaign Results
These case studies showcase how a well-planned approach on each platform can deliver measurable outcomes by leveraging their unique strengths.
LinkedIn Campaign Examples
Paragon executed a retargeting campaign in June 2024, focusing on website visitors by showcasing customer success stories and thought leadership ads. With a budget of $73,285, the campaign generated 17,000 clicks and resulted in $153,000 in closed deals – achieving more than 2× ROAS[24]. This example demonstrates the power of targeting warm audiences with social proof in a professional environment to directly boost revenue.
HubSpot took advantage of LinkedIn Lead Gen Forms to distribute eBooks and templates tailored to specific job titles and industries. By streamlining the conversion process, they reduced their cost per lead by 50% compared to other platforms[23]. This result underscores LinkedIn’s ability to deliver quality leads efficiently.
Brij CEO Kait Stephens adopted an organic strategy, posting daily content aimed at Tier 1 customer profiles. This effort resulted in 3 million impressions, a 10× increase in revenue, and a 5× expansion in their sales pipeline – with LinkedIn influencing 50% of their closed deals[24]. This case highlights the impact of consistent, targeted organic content on professional networks.
Facebook Campaign Examples
While LinkedIn thrives with targeted, high-intent audiences, Facebook excels in broad reach and cost-effective campaigns. In one instance, a parallel campaign on Facebook generated an additional 55 million impressions while using less than half the budget[2]. This example highlights Facebook’s ability to deliver high-volume results with a more economical approach. Together, these case studies emphasize the importance of aligning your campaign strategies with the strengths of each platform to maximize results.
Conclusion: Choosing the Right Platform
Deciding between LinkedIn and Facebook for B2B marketing depends largely on your goals and where your prospects are in their buying journey. If you’re aiming to connect with decision-makers who are ready to act, LinkedIn is the go-to platform. It consistently delivers a higher return on ad spend (ROAS), particularly when targeting high-intent prospects. Thanks to its professional focus and precise targeting options, LinkedIn shines in mid-to-bottom funnel activities where lead quality is critical. This aligns with the platform’s professional mindset and engagement patterns, as discussed earlier.
On the other hand, Facebook is all about scale and affordability, making it a great choice for top-of-funnel campaigns. With an average cost-per-click (CPC) of about $0.97 compared to LinkedIn’s $5.26, Facebook allows for broad testing and remarketing without stretching your budget [5]. Its expansive reach is perfect for building brand awareness and engaging larger audiences.
"If you’re after broad reach at a lower cost, Facebook wins. If you want hyper-relevant professional targeting with less waste, LinkedIn has the edge." – Leadenforce Blog [4]
To get the best of both worlds, many successful B2B marketers opt for a dual-platform strategy. They use Facebook to attract a wide audience and drive initial engagement, then turn to LinkedIn to focus on qualified decision-makers and push deals forward. This "broad-to-narrow" approach leverages Facebook’s scale for awareness and LinkedIn’s precision for conversions.
Budget allocation is key to making this strategy work. For Facebook, a monthly budget of $1,000–$5,000 is often sufficient, while LinkedIn typically requires $5,000–$15,000 to reflect its higher lead quality [22]. For businesses targeting niche professionals or high-value B2B sales, LinkedIn’s higher costs are often justified by leads that can yield 5–10 times more revenue [22]. Meanwhile, for those with tighter budgets or broader audience goals, Facebook offers an affordable starting point.
FAQs
What’s the difference between LinkedIn and Facebook when targeting decision-makers in B2B marketing?
LinkedIn’s ad platform is built around professional data, giving marketers the ability to zero in on decision-makers with precision. You can target users based on job title, seniority level, company size, industry, and even years of experience. This makes it an excellent choice for reaching high-level professionals like CEOs, CMOs, or other executives. Plus, since LinkedIn users are usually in a business-oriented mindset, the platform often delivers higher-quality leads. However, it’s worth noting that this comes with a higher cost per click.
Facebook, meanwhile, gives you access to a much broader audience, but its targeting options lean on demographics, interests, and online behaviors. It’s fantastic for building lookalike audiences or driving brand awareness, but it doesn’t offer the granular professional data needed to pinpoint senior-level executives. As a result, Facebook tends to be more effective for top-of-funnel campaigns or reaching a large audience at a lower cost.
How does the cost of lead generation compare between LinkedIn and Facebook for B2B marketing?
The cost of generating B2B leads can vary widely between LinkedIn and Facebook, primarily due to their distinct pricing structures and targeting features. Facebook tends to be the more economical option, offering lower cost-per-click (CPC) and cost-per-thousand impressions (CPM) rates. This makes it a great platform for testing different audiences and generating a higher quantity of leads.
In contrast, LinkedIn comes with a heftier price tag, often charging several times more than Facebook for ads. However, its advanced targeting capabilities – like filtering by job title, seniority level, or company size – make it particularly effective for connecting with decision-makers and prospects who are more likely to convert. For instance, marketers working with a $2,000 monthly ad budget often dedicate the bulk of it to Facebook for broad reach while reserving a smaller portion for LinkedIn to target specific, high-value individuals.
In essence, Facebook is ideal for campaigns focused on generating a large volume of leads, while LinkedIn’s higher costs are justified when aiming to secure highly qualified B2B prospects.
Which platform works better for high-value B2B sales and why?
LinkedIn stands out as a strong platform for high-value B2B sales, thanks to its visitor-to-lead conversion rate of 2.74% – a figure that’s almost 277% higher than Facebook’s 0.77%. This impressive stat highlights LinkedIn’s ability to generate leads effectively in the B2B space.
What makes LinkedIn even more appealing is its audience. The platform is filled with professionals and decision-makers who are already in a business-oriented mindset. This creates the perfect setting for networking, sharing industry insights, and exploring professional opportunities – all of which are essential for running successful B2B campaigns.