Start with Google Ads if buyers already search for what you sell — it captures existing demand cheaply and produces learning fastest. Start with LinkedIn only when your category has little search demand and your ACV is high enough to absorb the highest cost per click in B2B.
The fundamental difference
Google sells intent. Someone types a query, which means they have already recognised a problem and started looking. You are competing for a buyer who is in motion.
LinkedIn sells identity. You choose exactly who sees the ad — title, seniority, company, industry, company size — regardless of whether they are currently thinking about your problem. You are interrupting someone precisely chosen.
Neither is better. They solve different problems, and the mistake is using one for the other’s job: running LinkedIn as a bottom-funnel conversion channel, or expecting Google to create awareness in a category nobody searches for.
Side by side
| Dimension | Google Ads | LinkedIn Ads |
|---|---|---|
| What you buy | Intent | Identity |
| Targeting precision | Query-based, no firmographics natively | Title, seniority, company, industry, size |
| Relative cost per click | Moderate | Highest in B2B |
| Speed of learning | Fast — weeks | Slower — months |
| Works without existing demand | No | Yes |
| Best funnel position | Bottom | Top and middle |
| ACV threshold | Works at most ACVs | Rarely below ~$10k for direct response |
| Best creative type | Text matching the query | Content, thought leadership, video |
The ACV maths on LinkedIn
This is arithmetic rather than opinion. Work backwards: if LinkedIn clicks cost meaningfully more than search clicks, and B2B landing page conversion sits in the low single digits, and lead-to-opportunity conversion is perhaps 15%, and opportunity-to-close is perhaps 25%, then the fully loaded cost per closed deal becomes visible quickly.
At a $5,000 ACV that number usually exceeds the deal value. At $50,000 it is comfortable. This is why LinkedIn direct response fails for low-ACV companies no matter how good the creative is — the channel is not underperforming, the maths never closed.
The exception is using LinkedIn for engagement rather than conversion: amplifying executive content, supporting ABM, building familiarity in named accounts. Those uses are judged on different metrics and can work at lower ACVs.
When to start with LinkedIn instead
Three situations justify LinkedIn first. Your category is new enough that buyers do not have a term to search for. Your addressable market is small and precisely definable, making identity targeting more efficient than waiting for queries. Or you are running ABM, where reaching named accounts is the entire point.
Outside those, Google first is the stronger default because the feedback loop is faster and the learning transfers.
What most teams should actually run
The common effective structure is Google on bottom-funnel and branded terms as the demand-capture layer, retargeting for efficiency, and LinkedIn amplifying content and supporting named accounts rather than chasing form fills.
That split plays to each channel’s strength: Google converts people already looking, LinkedIn builds familiarity among people who are not yet. Judging LinkedIn on cost per lead in that structure will make it look like a failure, which is why the measurement framework has to match the role you have assigned each channel.
The mistake both channels share
Neither platform can optimise toward opportunities unless you tell it what an opportunity looks like. Both default to optimising for the cheapest conversion event you have configured, which is usually a form fill.
Offline conversion import from your CRM changes this on both platforms and is the highest-return technical change available in B2B paid media. Without it you are paying two sophisticated auction systems to find you the people most willing to fill in forms.