# LinkedIn ABM 2026 – Performance Benchmarks Report & Top Performing LinkedIn Ads > I remember how much I struggled to find reliable Linkedin ABM benchmarks (well, check this full benchmarks report now!) when I was starting to work on my LinkedIn ABM strategy a couple of years ago. Author: Emilia Korczynska Published: 2026-01-02 Updated: 2026-01-15 Categories: Performance & Benchmarks Source: https://zenabm.com/blog/linkedin-abm-performance-benchmarks-report-2026 --- ![ZenABM LinkedIn ABM 2026 Benchmarks report landing page showing 161,256 ads analysed across 211 companies](https://cdn.zenabm.com/media/Linkedin-ABM-Performance-Benchmarks-2026-ZenABM.png) I remember how much I struggled to find reliable [**Linkedin ABM benchmarks** (well, check this full benchmarks report now!) ](/linkedin-abm-benchmarks-report)when I was starting to work on my LinkedIn ABM strategy a couple of years ago. Many companies planning to launch their first Linkedin ABM campaigns (Account Based Marketing on LinkedIn) in 2026 will face the same struggle – launching without knowing what they \*really\* need to do to hit their revenue goals:  - how many companies they should target, how much they should spend (monthly) per company  - what budgets they need to spend,  - which ads they should use (and how many)  - what [LinkedIn ad performance](/blog/linkedin-ad-performance-tracking-for-enterprise-sales) metrics benchmarks (CTRs, CPCs, CPMs – overall and per inventory type – image, video, TLA, DM, document ads, text ads etc.) they should achieve – let alone what ad content performs best. So I looked at **anonymised data of 211 [ZenABM’s](/) users** – both quantitative (ad spend, number of accounts targeted, number of ads) and qualitative – which ads performed best and what they had in common (inventory type, to CTA and actual ad content)  In [**this report**](/linkedin-abm-benchmarks-report), you will find actionable information about how companies that were **running successful ABM campaigns with LinkedIn Ads in 2025 did in terms of ad spend, number of campaigns, and financial outcomes – influenced pipeline & pipeline per $ spent,** as well as what was the content and type of their top performing ads.  The analysis is based on **211 companies across 29 countries,** with a total ad spend of  **$5,536,829.2**2 and **161,256** ads they were running in **2025.** **The anonymised data has been pulled from [ZenABM’s Campaign Performance Dashboards](https://app.zenabm.com/signup),** which combines data from the users’ LinkedIn Campaign Manager API and their CRM, to provide detailed insights into LinkedIn ad campaigns performance and influence on pipeline and revenue. ![ZenABM dashboard showing $387,500 LinkedIn-influenced pipeline and ABM campaign performance metrics](https://cdn.zenabm.com/media/ZenABM-LinkedIn-ABM-Performance-Benchmarks-Report-Dashboard.png) You can [**try ZenABM for free for 37 days**](https://app.zenabm.com/signup) and get your own performance benchmarks for free, as ZenABM backfills 90 days of your ad performance data. It takes only 2 minutes to set up and a few minutes (depending on the number of LinkedIn campaigns run) **to [get your own report.](https://app.zenabm.com/signup)** The data was subsequently analysed using GPT-5.2. Extended Thinking model, Claude Sonnet 4-20250929 and Claude Opus 4.5.  In this report, you will learn **both quantitative and qualitative** [insights into LinkedIn ad performance](/linkedin-ad-campaign-insights) ## **PART 1: Quantitative ABM and LinkedIn campaign performance metrics benchmarks** In this part of the report, you will find answers to the following questions:  1. **How much were companies spending on their ABM campaigns in 2025?** 2. **How many ads** were companies running in 2025, on average? 3. **How many accounts were targeted (by month and overall) by the [companies running LinkedIn ABM?](/blog/best-linkedin-ad-attribution-tools) 4. **What were the median ad performance metrics (CTR, CPC, CPM)?** 5. **What was the median pipeline per $ spent (efficiency metric) and ROAS for [companies running ABM Campaigns](/blog/abm-strategy-types) in 2025?** 6. **What is the median Deal Open rate (= number of [deals / number of companies targeted)?](/blog/enterprise-abm) 7. For each question, you’ll find a **comparison of TOP Performers vs the average company** + a breakdown by **country, company size, and industry** ### **Data you will find in the report:**  - **Average & mean monthly ad spend** by company size, country and industry  - **Number of [ABM and LinkedIn ads run](/blog/ai-for-abm-linkedin)** (by company size, country and industry)  - **Number of Target Accounts** (= companies that ads were delivered to, with at least 3 ad impressions) by company size, country and industry  - **Number of Ads, LinkedIn Ads Sets (formerly Campaigns) and Campaigns (formerly** [Campaign Groups) run](/faq/see-companies-that-saw-your-linkedin-ads) – again, overall, and split by country/industry/ - **Ad Performance Metrics – Average LinkedIn Ads CPMs, CTRs (by company size, country and industry)**  - **Efficiency (Performance) metrics & ROAS (Return on Ad Spend) –** how much ABM/Linkedin influenced pipeline did the companies in the study generate, how much pipeline per $ spent did they get (campaign efficiency)  – overall and by company size, country and industry  - **WINNING company insights – the benchmarks from top-performing companies in terms of pipeline per $ spent,** and takeaways for companies planning to [run LinkedIn ABM](/blog/ai-for-abm-linkedin).  ## **PART 2: Qualitative LinkedIn ABM  ad performance – which ads performed best (content, CTAs, and ad formats)**  This part of the report focuses on ad performance (measured by CTR and pipeline per $ spent on campaign level) by inventory type, and qualitative aspects of the “winning” ads: - Ad content: - Visuals: Screenshots of interface? Photos of people?  - User-generated content?  - Testimonials?  - AI vs human-designed ads?  - –  and CTAs (sign up, learn more etc.)  ### **Methodology**  This report is based on data **from 211 companies [running ABM campaigns through LinkedIn](/blog/what-is-zenabm) Ads in 2025,** with a total ad spend of  **$5,536,829.22 across 29 countries, running a total of 161,256 ads.** ### **What is LinkedIn ABM?**  LinkedIn ABM is an **Account Based Marketing strategy** that relies predominantly on delivering the campaign content to the target accounts through LinkedIn ads.[ According to Kyle Poyar’s research](https://www.growthunhinged.com/p/the-best-growth-tactics-of-2025), 20% of companies surveyed poined to ABM as their top-performing Growth Strategy in 2025:  Why? ![Growth tactics of 2025 infographic where outbound/ABM and partner tactics lead at 20% of reader submissions](https://cdn.zenabm.com/media/Best-growth-tactics-2025-Kyle-Poyar.png) In my experience, [LinkedIn ABM is a great strategy](/blog/best-tools-linkedin-first-abm) for companies that want more control and precision in their marketing activities – instead of “spraying and praying” that content published on their own platforms / parter sites will attract the right companies with the right propensity to pay, ABM allows you to proactively reach your ICPs in the ideal target accoutns. ### **What metrics should companies running ABM on LinkedIn track?**  Since [LinkedIn](/blog/linkedin-abm-tools-account-tracking) allows more precise targeting for B2B than display advertising networks, more and more Saas companies are turning to running the Account Based Marketing programs on LinkedIn – hence the term “LinkedIn ABM”.  In the past, most [companies used to track leads](/blog/demandbase-one-for-abm) generated from ads (which is a very ineffective way of evaluating the performance of Account (!) based campaigns!) and ROAS (which is a very lagging metric and does not allow to evaluate whether a campaign is working or not for often more than 6 months, and does not provide any indication as to what needs to be improved to make the campaigns work better). So Companies that are planning to [run LinkedIn ABM Campaigns](/blog/what-is-zenabm) are often at a loss as to what metrics they should track to understand & improve their LinkedIn ABM campaign performance.  This is exactly why we launched [**ZenABM**](/) – to build upon our experience with running LinkedIn ABM campaigns, and provide done-for-you, prescriptive analytics dashboards with all the right reports tracking the right efficiency and effectiveness metrics:  - Funnel conversion rate and account penetration – % of target companies reached, % of companies moving into the awareness, interest, consideration, selection (deal open) and customer/ closed lost stages of the ABM funnel – overall, and per each ABM campaign: - [**ABM campaign performance**](/blog/ai-prompts-to-analyse-linkedin-ads-campaign-performance-abm) (ABM campaigns is a higher-order unit of measurement than “LinkedIn Campaign”, and usually is defined by one target audience = one company list) – including total pipeline generated and pipeline per dollar spent (efficiency metric). - [**LinkedIn ad & Campaign performance**](/linkedin-ad-campaign-insights) – CTRs, CPCs, CPMs per LinkedIn ad (for different ad formats) - Ad spend, **total pipeline influenced** (generated from companies that had enough impressions of the ads in the [ABM](/blog/demandbase-vs-zenabm) campaigns), total **LinkedIn ads influenced revenue:**  ## **PART 1: Quantitative ABM and LinkedIn campaign performance**  Here’s an executive summary of the quantitative analysis of **211 [ZenABM’s](/) users across 29 countries – mostly B2B SaaS companies:**  ### **1) How much were companies spending on LinkedIn ABM campaigns per month in 2025?** **While the typical company spends a modest \~$2,700 monthly (median),** the **average spend ($8,788/mo) is pulled significantly higher ($12k+ in the US)** by large **enterprise budgets and aggressive spending** in specific regions like the Netherlands ($35,260 mean, n = 9 companies) - **Typical company:** **median $2,693/mo**, **average $8,788/mo** (average is pulled up by big spenders). - **By country (means):** US **$12,740/mo**, UK **$4,869/mo**, Netherlands **$35,260/mo**. - **By employee size (means):** 11–50 employees **$4,892/mo** vs 1k–5k employees **$68,249/mo**. - **Top performers (your trimmed Top-25% by pipeline/$ cohort):** **median $6,576/mo**. ### **2) How many LinkedIn ABM ads were companies running, on average?** ![ZenABM chart: typical company runs 312 LinkedIn ABM ads, while top performers run only 114 ads each](https://cdn.zenabm.com/media/LinkedIn-ABM-Ad-volume-ZenABM-1.png) **A typical [company running LinkedIn ABM](/faq/see-companies-that-saw-your-linkedin-ads)  (medians runs 312 ads**, across **16 campaign groups**, and **44 ad sets**. The highest number of ads are run by companies in the US, UK and the Netherlands. Interestingly – Top [performing companies are running](/blog/best-linkedin-ad-attribution-tools) fewer ads (but this doesn’t imply causality – as the mean is pulled heavily by average ACV rather than pipeline efficiency or ad creatives). - **Typical company (medians):** **312 ads**, **16 campaign groups**, **44 ad sets**. - **Overall (means):** **724 ads**, **26.5 campaign groups**, **84.8 ad sets**. - **By country (mean # ads):** US **582**, UK **647**, Netherlands **4,011**. - **By employee size (mean # ads):** 11–50 employees **622** vs 1k–5k employees **7,297**. - **Top performers (Top-25% by pipeline/$):** **median 114 ads**, **10 campaign groups**, **20 ad sets**. ### **3) How many target accounts do companies running LinkedIn ABM typically reach?** ![ZenABM target accounts reached chart: typical company hits 6,423, top performers reach 9,071](https://cdn.zenabm.com/media/ZenABM-Linkedin-ABM-target-accounts-reached-1.png) The “typical company” running LinkedIn ABM campaigns runs **ads to around 9,875 companies in total**, and  **6,423 target accounts per month.**  The number of [companies targeted scales](/blog/enterprise-abm) heavily with company size rather than performance tier. - **Typical company:** **median 6,423 target accounts/mo**, **median 9,875 total**. - **Averages:** **4,398 target accounts/mo**, **10,454 total**. - **By country (average, target accounts/mo):** US **4,136/mo**, UK **5,326/mo**. - **By employee size (average, target accounts/mo):** 11–50 employees **4,370/mo** vs 1k–5k employees **10,016/mo**. - **Top performers (Top-25% by pipeline/$ cohort):** **median 9,071 total** target accounts. ### **4) What were the median ad performance benchmarks (CTR, CPC, CPM)?** The “typical” company in the dataset running ABM ads on LinkedIn has CTRs of **CTR 0.69%**, **CPC $11.04**, **CPM $78.30** - **Overall medians:** **CTR 0.69%**, **CPC $11.04**, **CPM $78.30**. - **Country medians (examples):** - US: **CTR 0.52%**, **CPC $8.99**, **CPM $62.67** - UK: **CTR 0.55%**, **CPC $9.16**, **CPM $56.62** - Netherlands: **CTR 0.72%**, **CPC $6.40**, **CPM $50.08** - **Top performers (your trimmed Top-25% by pipeline/$ cohort):** **CTR 0.21%**, **CPC $21.91**, **CPM $56.62** (i.e., which indicate the top performance is skewed by high ACV rather than great ad performance!). ### **5) What was the median pipeline-per-$ and ROAS?** ![ZenABM chart: higher LinkedIn ad spend tiers show weak negative correlation with pipeline per dollar](https://cdn.zenabm.com/media/ZenABM-Linkedin-ABM-Spend-tier-impact-on-efficiency.png) - **Across [companies with pipeline attribution](/blog/linkedin-abm-pipeline-reporting-tools) present (medians):** - **Influenced pipeline:** **$13,819/mo** (median) - **Pipeline per $:** **5.21** - **ROAS:** **1.62** - **Top performers (your trimmed Top-25% by pipeline/$ cohort):** - **$106,500/mo** influenced pipeline (median) → **$1,278,000/yr** annualized (median) - **Pipeline per $: 15.20** (median) - **ROAS: 2.79** (median) ### **6) What is the median Deal Open Rate?** ![ZenABM ABM benchmarks showing 0.58% median deal open rate and $13,819 LinkedIn pipeline per month](https://cdn.zenabm.com/media/ZenABM-Linkedin-ABM-performance-benchmarks-deal-open-rate-pipeline-per-spent.png) - **Overall median deal open rate:** **0.58%** (deals [opened ÷ target accounts](/blog/best-intent-based-abm-tools)). - **Top performers (your trimmed Top-25% by pipeline/$ cohort):** **0.66%** (median). ## **Key LinkedIn ABM Metrics:** Below, you will find the key LinkedIn ABM metrics – overall, by Country, Company Size & Industry: | **Segment** | **Monthly spend ($/mo)** | **Total spend ($)** | **Target accounts (total)** | **Target accounts (avg/mo)** | **LinkedIn ads (#)** | **Campaign Groups (#)** | **Ad sets (#)** | **Impressions (avg/mo)** | **Clicks (avg/mo)** | **CTR (%)** | **CPC ($)** | **CPM ($)** | **Influenced pipeline ($/mo)** | **Pipeline per $** | **ROAS** | **Deal open rate (%)** | | **Overall** | $8,788 | $84,995 | 10,454 | 4,398 | 724 | 26.5 | 84.8 | 318,653 | 1,017 | 1.15% | $11.03 | $68.62 | $247,794 | 38.96 | 263.63 | 0.99% | | Country: United States | $12,740 | $120,194 | 8,486 | 4,136 | 582 | 25.8 | 75.8 | 242,036 | 805 | 1.03% | $11.65 | $65.71 | $788,950 | 40.25 | 5.87 | 0.96% | | Country: United Kingdom | $4,869 | $47,056 | 12,451 | 5,326 | 647 | 29.0 | 108.2 | 340,025 | 1,165 | 1.03% | $12.73 | $72.20 | $37,120 | 5.74 | 908.59ijk | 1.01% | | Country: Netherlands | $35,260 | $290,575 | 14,651 | 5,012 | 4,011 | 39.2 | 130.8 | 614,006 | 2,073 | 1.17% | $8.21 | $76.62 | $160,910 | 4.01 | 1.17 | 0.88% | | Country: Unknown | $5,191 | $44,119 | 10,541 | 4,899 | 1,171 | 24.1 | 89.8 | 420,663 | 1,224 | 1.23% | $10.86 | $65.07 | $165,406 | 54.22 | 563.62 | 1.02% | | Country: Ireland | $3,323 | $30,858 | 8,121 | 3,679 | 533 | 24.8 | 69.2 | 324,061 | 1,147 | 1.16% | $11.43 | $73.34 | $17,930 | 4.05 | 0.85 | 0.98% | | Country: Poland | $4,585 | $32,005 | 5,200 | 2,260 | 586 | 24.2 | 71.6 | 288,747 | 827 | 0.90% | $12.39 | $57.48 | $3,955 | 2.39 | 0.41 | 1.15% | | Country: Sweden | $3,922 | $28,192 | 6,058 | 2,825 | 503 | 22.8 | 58.4 | 214,167 | 539 | 1.03% | $15.08 | $55.16 | — | 0.35 | 0.00 | 0.85% | | Country: India | $2,134 | $18,627 | 4,421 | 2,004 | 202 | 19.7 | 45.3 | 159,688 | 320 | 0.68% | $11.80 | $47.24 | — | — | — | 0.59% | | Country: Australia | $6,036 | $44,333 | 10,296 | 4,681 | 733 | 28.7 | 97.7 | 363,353 | 1,191 | 1.05% | $11.89 | $66.41 | — | 0.04 | 0.11 | 0.72% | | Employee size: 1–10 | $1,836 | $13,562 | 5,201 | 2,824 | 174 | 20.1 | 42.5 | 238,558 | 538 | 0.62% | $15.55 | $65.42 | $6,525 | 0.41 | 1.04 | 0.60% | | Employee size: 11–50 | $4,892 | $43,620 | 11,327 | 4,370 | 622 | 25.7 | 83.4 | 285,525 | 908 | 1.08% | $11.92 | $70.26 | $122,375 | 34.39 | 1.62 | 1.04% | | Employee size: 51–200 | $13,047 | $123,182 | 10,626 | 4,436 | 979 | 29.3 | 92.1 | 351,056 | 1,306 | 1.35% | $9.42 | $62.83 | $275,100 | 11.60 | 1.62 | 0.87% | | Employee size: 201–500 | $10,597 | $100,288 | 11,304 | 4,373 | 868 | 27.6 | 84.6 | 372,282 | 1,185 | 1.11% | $11.35 | $70.74 | $149,820 | 4.73 | 0.86 | 1.04% | | Employee size: 501–1k | $14,828 | $136,133 | 12,126 | 4,558 | 1,049 | 31.8 | 91.8 | 460,271 | 1,683 | 1.03% | $10.75 | $59.31 | $170,621 | 7.07 | 0.73 | 0.89% | | Employee size: 1k–5k | $68,249 | $653,407 | 22,669 | 10,016 | 7,297 | 40.9 | 168.4 | 876,612 | 3,748 | 1.29% | $5.55 | $82.90 | $460,950 | 2.78 | 0.08 | 0.77% | | Employee size: 5k–10k | $18,733 | $166,228 | 5,128 | 1,489 | 1,032 | 38.9 | 117.0 | 388,996 | 1,767 | 1.61% | $6.41 | $58.68 | $19,514 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.73% | | Employee size: 10k+ | $9,287 | $76,552 | 9,238 | 4,201 | 912 | 29.1 | 81.0 | 319,347 | 1,186 | 1.24% | $8.54 | $57.73 | — | — | — | 0.74% | | Employee size: Unknown | $7,181 | $66,223 | 7,524 | 3,510 | 608 | 25.8 | 79.7 | 297,468 | 941 | 1.06% | $11.68 | $66.12 | $92,715 | 34.61 | 981.93 | 1.31% | | Revenue: <$1M | $2,543 | $25,882 | 7,666 | 3,747 | 254 | 22.5 | 59.0 | 277,152 | 605 | 0.72% | $13.72 | $63.78 | $38,717 | 14.41 | 2.49 | 0.77% | | Revenue: $1–5M | $2,480 | $22,172 | 11,456 | 5,032 | 291 | 23.2 | 70.1 | 299,629 | 768 | 0.90% | $10.87 | $61.42 | $126,005 | 50.83 | 1.85 | 0.89% | | Revenue: $5–10M | $4,365 | $43,556 | 9,911 | 4,584 | 462 | 24.4 | 79.4 | 361,105 | 915 | 0.88% | $12.43 | $71.01 | $116,050 | 26.60 | 1.11 | 0.92% | | Revenue: $10–50M | $6,582 | $62,035 | 12,067 | 5,321 | 889 | 27.4 | 92.0 | 366,716 | 1,246 | 1.30% | $9.63 | $69.92 | $147,704 | 22.44 | 0.95 | 1.18% | | Revenue: $50–200M | $8,677 | $81,412 | 13,001 | 5,147 | 846 | 28.0 | 87.2 | 431,418 | 1,417 | 1.05% | $10.82 | $64.08 | $109,790 | 4.59 | 0.40 | 0.90% | | Revenue: $200M–$1B | $20,131 | $167,950 | 8,301 | 3,057 | 1,220 | 34.4 | 108.7 | 423,720 | 1,611 | 1.46% | $7.31 | $66.22 | $133,655 | 6.64 | 0.56 | 1.05% | | Revenue: $1B+ | $33,832 | $259,463 | 2,440 | 1,140 | 1,586 | 45.0 | 141.0 | 409,386 | 1,952 | 1.91% | $6.21 | $55.33 | — | — | — | 0.64% | | Revenue: Unknown | $9,463 | $90,205 | 9,222 | 3,720 | 890 | 27.7 | 85.8 | 301,219 | 1,081 | 1.13% | $11.33 | $71.16 | $251,471 | 47.30 | 757.64 | 1.08% | | Industry: Software Development | $8,054 | $79,078 | 10,308 | 4,377 | 584 | 25.4 | 79.1 | 308,381 | 981 | 1.09% | $10.95 | $70.14 | $221,050 | 49.76 | 1.83 | 1.09% | | Industry: Unknown | $4,828 | $43,144 | 10,642 | 4,856 | 1,336 | 23.1 | 89.7 | 425,741 | 1,223 | 1.13% | $11.50 | $62.13 | $167,945 | 42.13 | 638.37 | 0.98% | | Industry: IT Services and IT Consulting | $8,969 | $83,347 | 11,676 | 4,909 | 782 | 27.7 | 90.0 | 329,383 | 1,036 | 1.04% | $11.62 | $69.25 | $40,135 | 5.07 | 2.27 | 0.94% | | Industry: Advertising Services | $7,909 | $66,886 | 9,347 | 4,158 | 473 | 25.9 | 85.4 | 310,735 | 932 | 1.08% | $12.77 | $65.06 | $1,896 | 0.06 | 0.01 | 1.11% | | Industry: Technology, Information and Internet | $13,567 | $134,231 | 12,397 | 5,768 | 1,011 | 29.4 | 92.0 | 437,804 | 1,560 | 1.31% | $8.70 | $74.20 | $325,000 | 23.96 | 0.64 | 0.93% | ## **How does budget spend, number of companies targeted, number of LinkedIn ads, and ad performance metrics (average CTRs, CPCs, CPMs etc.) influence your ABM results (pipeline + efficiency – pipeline per $ spent)**  Below are the **correlations** between** [ABM performance](/use-cases/abm-campaign-management-performance-tracking)** (total pipeline produced and pipeline per $ spent = efficiency) and execution variables, plus **CPM by ad spend tier**. **Performance metrics used** - **Influenced pipeline per month ($/mo)** = TOTAL [LinkedIn influenced pipeline](/blog/linkedin-ad-pipeline-influence-tracking) / active months - **Pipeline per $ (efficiency)** = Pipeline per $ **Important:** These correlations are computed on the subset of companies where the performance metric is populated (**N = 33** for most pairs; **N = 30** where “# LinkedIn ads” is missing). ## **Key takeaways – impact of budget, target account list size, number of ads  & LinkedIn ads performance metrics on ABM results**  - **If you want more pipeline, budget matters most.** Monthly ad spend has the strongest relationship with pipeline influenced per month (ρ **0.47**, r **0.57**). **Do this:** if your goal is *more pipeline volume*, plan to **increase (or keep steady) monthly spend**. - [**Targeting more accounts](/blog/measure-linkedin-ad-engagement-target-accounts) is the second largest predictor of pipeline success (although not as powerful as spend).** Don’t increase your [ABM budget without increasing your target account](/blog/signal-based-outbound) lists (i.e. don’t spend that extra budget on just increasing your bids to reach your existing list faster/ boost account penetration). Larger lists perform better for increasing monthly pipeline (bigger **target account lists** correlated positively with total pipeline(total ρ **0.37**, per month ρ **0.35**)), especially if paired with: - more **LinkedIn ad sets** (ρ **0.39**) **Do this:** after you set budget, grow pipeline by **adding ad sets** and **expanding the [target account list](/blog/clay-for-target-account-list-building-abm)**. **“More ads” alone doesn’t predict better results.**  Number of ads has only a weak link with pipeline/month (ρ **0.31**, r **0.06**). This is probably because having too many ads in one campaign results in poor budget distribution, and not enough reach and frequency of the ads to really “tell the story” your campaign was intended to.  **Do this:** don’t treat “ads launched” as success. Use more ads only when it supports **testing and personalization**. ### **CTR isn’t a good success metric for LinkedIn ABM pipeline.** ### Surprisingly, CTRs basically doesn’t move with pipeline/month (ρ **-0.14**) and doesn’t explain efficiency either. However – this is most likely skewed by the high ACV the top performers have – so they don’t have to worry about ad performance per se.  **Cheap clicks don’t equal more pipeline.**  CPC doesn’t clearly relate to pipeline/month (ρ **0.29**, r **-0.02**). **Do this:** don’t pause campaigns just because CPC is high. In ABM, higher CPC can still be fine if you’re reaching the right buyers. **CPM isn’t telling you much about performance here.** CPM is basically unrelated to pipeline/month (ρ **0.05**) and efficiency (ρ **-0.07**). **Do this:** use CPM mainly for **planning reach**, not for deciding whether a campaign “works.” ### **Efficiency (Pipeline per $) doesn’t improve just by scaling mechanics.**  Pipeline/$ has near-zero relationships with spend, targeting volume, # campaigns, # ads, CTR, CPC, CPM (most are between **-0.13 and +0.09**). **Do this:** to improve efficiency, focus on things like:  - better **account list quality** (fit + intent) - clearer **message + offer** - better **landing page + follow-up** (speed-to-lead, outbound to engaged accounts) **There’s a tiny “bigger = slightly less efficient” pattern.**  Spend vs Pipeline/$ is slightly negative (ρ **-0.13**) — very weak, but it shows up. **Do this:** when you scale budget, do it in steps and watch **Pipeline/$ by segment**, so efficiency doesn’t drop. **Simple takeaway:** **Spend + coverage = more pipeline.** **Efficiency = better targeting + better messaging + better conversion + better follow-up.** ## **Correlations vs Influenced pipeline per month ($/mo)** (Reported as **Spearman rho** + **Pearson r**) | **Driver** | **N** | **Spearman rho** | **Pearson r** | | Monthly ad spend ($/mo) | 33 | 0.47 | 0.57 | | LinkedIn Campaigns (ad sets) | 33 | 0.39 | 0.21 | | Companies targeted (total) | 33 | 0.37 | 0.13 | | Companies targeted (avg/mo) | 33 | 0.35 | 0.27 | | LinkedIn ads (count) | 30 | 0.31 | 0.06 | | CPC ($) | 33 | 0.29 | -0.02 | | [LinkedIn Campaign Groups](/faq/see-companies-that-saw-your-linkedin-ads) | 33 | 0.22 | 0.09 | | CTR (%) | 33 | -0.14 | 0.05 | | CPM ($) | 33 | 0.05 | 0.21 | **Interpretation:** in this view, **pipeline volume scales most with monthly spend** (moderate positive correlation). Variables like **campaigns/ad sets** and **targeting volume** show **weak-to-moderate positive** relationships with monthly pipeline volume, but notably smaller than spend. ## **How does LinkedIn ABM Ad Spend Tiers correlate with TOTAL influenced pipeline?** **Annualized pipeline ($/yr)** = (TOTAL [LinkedIn influenced pipeline ÷ active](/blog/how-to-sync-linkedin-ad-data-with-a-crm-a-better-alternative-to-native-integration) months) × 12 | **Monthly ad spend tier** | **Companies** | **Median spend ($/mo)** | **Median influenced pipeline ($/mo)** | **Median influenced pipeline ($/yr, annualized)** | | < $2k/mo | 9 | $977 | $16,667 | $200,000 | | $2k–$5k | 5 | $3,510 | $6,000 | $72,000 | | $5k–$10k | 9 | $7,663 | $20,600 | $247,200 | | $10k–$20k | 5 | $14,474 | $124,653 | $1,495,830 | | $20k+/mo | 5 | $39,554 | $272,357 | $3,268,280 | **What the medians show:** higher spend tiers generally align with higher **median annualized pipeline**, with the biggest jump starting in the **$10k–$20k/mo** tier. ## **Correlation: LinkedIn ABM spend tier ↔ Pipeline per $ (efficiency)** Treating spend tier as an ordered variable (low → high): - **Spearman rho:** **-0.12** - **Pearson r:** **-0.25** So, in this subset, **moving up spend tiers is not associated with higher efficiency** (if anything it’s *slightly* negative, but weak). ## **Pipeline per $ by monthly ad spend tier (medians)** | **Monthly ad spend tier** | **Companies** | **Median spend ($/mo)** | **Median Pipeline per $** | **P25 Pipeline per $** | **P75 Pipeline per $** | | < $2k/mo | 9 | $977 | 22.10 | 6.11 | 74.91 | | $2k–$5k | 5 | $3,510 | 1.83 | 1.71 | 4.30 | | $5k–$10k | 9 | $7,663 | 2.78 | 1.13 | 14.51 | | $10k–$20k | 5 | $14,474 | 9.30 | 8.38 | 25.39 | | $20k+/mo | 5 | $39,554 | 6.89 | 4.42 | 9.64 | **What this table shows (light interpretation):** - The **highest-spend tier** does **not** have the highest median efficiency. - The **< $2k/mo** tier has the **highest median Pipeline/$**, but also the **widest spread** (big variability), which is why the tier-level correlation is near zero. ## **Correlations vs Pipeline per $ (efficiency)** | **Driver** | **N** | **Spearman rho** | **Pearson r** | | Monthly ad spend ($/mo) | 33 | -0.13 | -0.12 | | LinkedIn Campaigns (ad sets) | 33 | -0.10 | -0.14 | | CPC ($) | 33 | 0.09 | -0.10 | | Companies targeted (total) | 33 | -0.07 | -0.14 | | Companies targeted (avg/mo) | 33 | 0.07 | -0.13 | | CTR (%) | 33 | -0.07 | 0.08 | | CPM ($) | 33 | -0.07 | -0.08 | | LinkedIn ads (count) | 30 | -0.05 | -0.08 | | [LinkedIn Campaign Groups](/faq/see-companies-that-saw-your-linkedin-ads) | 33 | -0.02 | -0.16 | **Interpretation:** efficiency (**Pipeline/$**) has **near-zero relationships** with spend, targeting volume, campaign counts, ads count, CTR/CPC/CPM in this subset. The (slightly) negative signs for spend/targeting (more spend and more companies targeted = lower efficiency) are present, but very weak.  ## **What should you do to “win” at LinkedIn ABM?**  Here are **data-backed “what to aim for” targets** you can lift straight into a demand gen / [ABM report](/blog/abm-tactics-that-drive-results). (All benchmarks are **per-company**, then aggregated. Where I reference correlations, it’s the **N=33** pipeline-attributed subset you shared.) ![ZenABM LinkedIn ABM benchmarks: median and P90 monthly spend, target accounts and ad counts](https://cdn.zenabm.com/media/ZenABM-ABM-Best-practices.png) ## **Executive summary: the “do this” targets (to drive more pipeline from your ABM campaigns)** If you’re a demand gen [manager planning a LinkedIn ABM](/faq/how-is-zenabm-different-from-linkedin-campaign-manager) motion: - **Spend:** start at **\~$2.7k/mo**, plan for **\~$6.9k/mo** if you want an upper-quartile program, and **\~$20k/mo** if you want aggressive scale. - **Target accounts:** start at **\~2.5k/month**, scale to **\~6.4k/month** for upper quartile, and **\~10k/month** for aggressive scale. - **Build volume:** baseline **\~250 ads / \~12 campaign groups / \~30 ad sets**; scale roughly to the **P75** bundle (**\~620 / \~20 / \~54**) as budget grows. - **KPI guardrails:** CTR **\~0.7%** baseline (**\~1.4%** strong), CPC typically **$5–$13**, CPM typically **\~$40–$80**. - **Efficiency targets:** aim for **Pipeline/$ ≥ \~7** baseline, **≥ \~22** strong; Deal open rate **\~0.35–0.40%** baseline, **\~0.8%+** strong; ROAS baseline **\~1.6**, strong **\~2.5–3.0**. ## **1) How much should I spend per month?** **Recommendation (budget targets):** pick your tier based on how aggressive you want to be. | **Monthly [ABM ad](/thank-you) spend** | **Median (P50)** | **P75** | **P90** | **Mean** | | **Spend ($/mo)** | **$2,693** | **$6,918** | **$19,989** | **$8,788** | **Correlation-backed implication (pipeline volume):** - **Spend is the strongest “volume lever”** for influenced pipeline/month (**Spearman 0.47 / Pearson 0.57** in your table). - That means: if you want **more pipeline volume**, the most reliable change is moving from \~**$2.7k/mo → $6.9k/mo → $20k/mo**. ## **2) How many accounts should I target?** These are based on **Monthly average # of companies targeted**. | **Target accounts delivered to (avg/mo)** | **Median (P50)** | **P75** | **P90** | **Mean** | | **Target accounts (avg/mo)** | **2,518** | **6,423** | **10,007** | **4,398** | **Prescriptive targets:** - **Baseline ABM reach:** target **\~2.5k accounts/month** - **Stronger ABM reach (upper quartile):** **\~6.4k/month** - **Aggressive scale:** **\~10k/month** **Correlation-backed note (pipeline volume):** - Targeting volume has only a **weak-to-moderate** relationship with pipeline volume (ρ **0.35–0.37** in your table), and **basically no relationship with efficiency** (Pipeline/$ \~0). So: **scale targeting for volume**, but don’t expect it to “fix” Pipeline/$. ## **3) How many Linkedin ads / campaigns should I run for my ABM Campaigns?** Use these as **execution targets** (not “success” KPIs). | **Build volume** | **Median (P50)** | **P75** | **P90** | **Mean** | | **LinkedIn ads (#)** | **247** | **622** | **1,405** | **891** | | **Campaign Groups (#)** | **12** | **20** | **39** | **26** | | **Ad sets (#)** | **29** | **54** | **124** | **100** | **Prescriptive target-setting:** - If you’re spending around the **median ($2.7k/mo)**, plan for roughly **\~250 ads / \~12 campaign groups / \~30 ad sets**. - If you’re spending around **P75 ($6.9k/mo)**, plan for **\~620 ads / \~20 groups / \~54 ad sets**. - If you’re spending around **P90 ($20k/mo)**, plan for **\~1.4k ads / \~39 groups / \~124 ad sets**. **Correlation-backed note:** - **# Ad sets** has a *somewhat* positive relationship with pipeline/month (ρ **0.39**), but it’s still materially weaker than spend. - **# Ads** is weaker again (ρ **0.31**, Pearson **0.06**). Translation: **more ads ≠ guaranteed more pipeline**. ## **4) What ABM Linkedin ad performance metrics should I aim for? (CTR, CPC, CPM)** ### **Overall benchmark targets** | **Metric** | **Median (P50)** | **P75** | **P90** | **Mean** | | **CTR (%)** | **0.69%** | **1.41%** | **2.37%** | **1.26%** | | **CPC ($)** | **$5.53** | **$13.27** | **$24.25** | **$10.70** | | **CPM ($)** | **$40.18** | **$81.15** | **$151.19** | **$74.53** | **Prescriptive (what to aim for):** - **CTR:** aim to be at least around **\~0.7%** as a baseline; **\~1.4%** is “upper quartile”. - **CPC:** “typical” is around **$5–$13** (median → P75). (Higher isn’t automatically bad in ABM.) - **CPM:** **\~$40** is median; **\~$80** is already upper quartile. ### **CTR**  - CTR vs **pipeline/month:** **Spearman -0.14**, Pearson **0.05** (basically *no positive relationship*, slightly negative on rank-correlation) - CTR vs **Pipeline/$:** **Spearman -0.07**, Pearson **0.08** (near-zero) **So the prescriptive takeaway is:** - **Don’t set a “high CTR” goal as your primary ABM objective.** Use CTR as a **creative/account coverage diagnostic**, but judge success with **pipeline/month + Pipeline/$**. ## Clicks DON’T correlate with pipeline, but Impressions DO Correlate with Pipeline! Spearman ρ = 0.445 (p=0.009) – Statistically significant at p<0.01 level This is a moderate positive correlation, making impressions the 5th strongest driver of total pipeline. ### **What Drives Linkedin ABM Pipeline (Ranked by Strength):** 1. Deals Opened (ρ = 0.593) \*\*\* – Most predictive 2. Total Ad Spend (ρ = 0.566) \*\*\* – Budget is key 3. Monthly Ad Spend (ρ = 0.511) \*\* – Consistent spending matters 4. Total Engagements (ρ = 0.480) \*\* – Likes/comments/shares work 5. Total Impressions (ρ = 0.445) \*\* – Brand awareness drives pipeline ⭐ 6. LinkedIn Ad Sets (ρ = 0.422) \* – More segmentation helps 7. Companies Targeted (ρ = 0.395) \* – Larger lists help 8. Total Clicks (ρ = 0.349) \* – Weakest significant driver ### **What DOESN’T Drive Linkedin ABM  Pipeline:** - ❌ CTR (ρ = -0.170, p=0.34) – Actually negative! - ❌ CPM (ρ = 0.112, p=0.54) – No relationship - ❌ Number of Ads (ρ = 0.186, p=0.33) – More ads ≠ more results ## **5) What efficiency targets should I aim for? (Pipeline/$, ROAS, Deal open rate)** These are best read on the **pipeline-attributed subset (N=33)**. ### **Pipeline/$ targets (this one is stable)** - In that N=33 set: **median Pipeline/$ = 6.89**, **P75 = 21.83**, **mean = 38.96** (mean is skewed by big outliers) **Prescriptive:** - **Baseline efficiency target:** **Pipeline/$ ≥ \~7** - **Strong efficiency target (top quartile):** **Pipeline/$ ≥ \~22** ### **Deal open rate targets (deals opened ÷ target accounts)** - In the N=33 set: **median 0.37%**, **P75 0.81%** - Whole dataset is lower (median **0.20%**) because many companies aren’t opening many deals relative to large account counts. **Prescriptive:** - **Baseline deal open rate:** **\~0.35–0.40%** - **Strong:** **\~0.8%+** ### **ROAS targets (be careful with the mean)** In N=33, ROAS has extreme outliers: - **Median ROAS = 1.65** - Mean ROAS is distorted; even a trimmed mean is \~**6.0** **Prescriptive:** - **Baseline:** **ROAS ≥ \~1.6** - **Strong:** **\~2.5–3.0** (this lines up with the “top performer” ROAS medians you’ve been using elsewhere) ## **6) Segment-specific “starting points” (spend + targeting)** ### **By country (top 5 by sample size in this dataset, excluding “Unknown”)** | **Country** | **Monthly spend (median)** | **Monthly spend (mean)** | **Target accts/mo (median)** | **Target accts/mo (mean)** | | United States | $3,997 | $12,741 | 2,537 | 4,136 | | United Kingdom | $2,468 | $4,869 | 2,810 | 5,326 | | Poland | $2,557 | $4,585 | 1,626 | 2,260 | | Germany | $2,392 | $3,564 | 2,703 | 3,160 | | Netherlands | $4,230 | $35,260 | 4,170 | 5,012 | **Prescriptive:** If you want “typical” targets for your geo, use the **median** spend + targeting. If you’re planning for scale, use the **mean** (and expect skew). ### **By company size (employee brackets)** | **Employee bracket** | **Monthly spend (median)** | **Monthly spend (mean)** | **Target accts/mo (median)** | **Target accts/mo (mean)** | | 1–10 | $1,035 | $4,920 | 1,356 | 2,824 | | 11–50 | $2,175 | $4,892 | 2,425 | 4,370 | | 51–200 | $4,507 | $8,697 | 2,242 | 4,436 | | 201–500 | $6,914 | $10,597 | 3,404 | 4,373 | | 1k–5k | $70,159 | $68,249 | 10,016 | 10,016 | **Prescriptive:** for most [SaaS ABM](/blog/saas-abm-strategy) teams, the “practical” planning bands come from **11–500 employees** rows (more stable sample sizes). The **1k–5k** tier behaves like a different universe. ### **By industry (top 5 by sample size, excluding “Unknown”)** | **Industry** | **Monthly spend (median)** | **Monthly spend (mean)** | **Target accts/mo (median)** | **Target accts/mo (mean)** | | Software Development | $3,237 | $7,804 | 2,338 | 4,377 | | IT Services and IT Consulting | $1,690 | $6,696 | 2,058 | 4,909 | | Advertising Services | $3,608 | $7,909 | 2,707 | 4,158 | | Technology, Information and Internet | $2,502 | $7,878 | 3,382 | 5,768 | | Marketing Services | $1,983 | $7,886 | 2,670 | 4,205 | ## **Key LinkedIn ABM Metrics by Country, Industry and Company size** ## **1) Monthly ABM spend — what budgets looked like in 2025** **Typical vs Top performers (context)** - Typical company (overall): **median $2,693/mo**, mean **$8,788/mo** - Top performers (your cohort): **median $6,576/mo** ### **By country**  | **Country** | **Monthly spend (median)** | **Monthly spend (mean)** | | United States | $3,998 | $12,741 | | United Kingdom | $2,469 | $4,869 | | Poland | $2,483 | $4,585 | | Netherlands | $4,229 | $35,260 | | Germany | $2,037 | $4,602 | ### **By company size (employee brackets)** | **Employee bracket** | **Monthly spend (median)** | **Monthly spend (mean)** | | 1–10 | $1,500 | $1,931 | | 11–50 | $2,175 | $4,892 | | 51–200 | $4,507 | $8,697 | | 201–500 | $6,915 | $10,512 | | 501–1k | $10,204 | $10,877 | | 1k–5k | $70,159 | $68,249 | | 5k–10k | $6,834 | $20,106 | | 10k+ | $6,180 | $16,361 | | Unknown | $3,641 | $7,189 | ### **By industry (Top 5 by sample size; “Unknown” excluded)** | **Industry** | **Monthly spend (median)** | **Monthly spend (mean)** | | Software Development | $3,237 | $7,804 | | IT Services and IT Consulting | $1,690 | $6,696 | | Technology, Information and Internet | $2,502 | $7,878 | | Advertising Services | $1,395 | $6,105 | | Marketing Services | $2,093 | $3,896 | ## **2) How many ads were companies running? (volume + structure)** **Typical vs Top performers (context)** - Typical company (overall medians, from dataset): **249 ads**, **14.5 campaign groups**, **28.5 ad sets** - Top performers (your cohort): **114 ads**, **10 campaign groups**, **20 ad sets** ### **By country** | **Country** | **LinkedIn ads (median)** | **LinkedIn ads (mean)** | **Campaign Groups (median)** | **Campaign Groups (mean)** | **Ad sets (median)** | **Ad sets (mean)** | | United States | 309 | 1,074 | 15 | 29.5 | 44 | 106.5 | | United Kingdom | 260 | 1,012 | 13 | 25.2 | 28 | 92.0 | | Poland | 233 | 1,391 | 11 | 26.8 | 31 | 91.8 | | Netherlands | 1,360 | 5,051 | 19 | 30.9 | 55 | 123.2 | | Germany | 88 | 393 | 9 | 14.0 | 11 | 56.3 | ### **By company size (employee brackets)** | **Employee bracket** | **LinkedIn ads (median)** | **LinkedIn ads (mean)** | **Campaign Groups (median)** | **Campaign Groups (mean)** | **Ad sets (median)** | **Ad sets (mean)** | | 1–10 | 114 | 301 | 10 | 18.0 | 18 | 50.4 | | 11–50 | 212 | 569 | 13 | 23.6 | 26 | 86.7 | | 51–200 | 484 | 931 | 18 | 28.9 | 37 | 89.7 | | 201–500 | 716 | 832 | 21 | 34.5 | 63 | 147.7 | | 501–1k | 514 | 1,608 | 18 | 26.3 | 44 | 97.3 | | 1k–5k | 7,297 | 7,297 | 35 | 35.0 | 169 | 169.0 | | 5k–10k | 822 | 1,129 | 23 | 37.0 | 91 | 123.7 | | 10k+ | 410 | 1,075 | 15 | 34.0 | 51 | 133.0 | | Unknown | 263 | 753 | 15 | 26.5 | 34 | 78.9 | ### **By industry** | **Industry** | **LinkedIn ads (median)** | **LinkedIn ads (mean)** | **Campaign Groups (median)** | **Campaign Groups (mean)** | **Ad sets (median)** | **Ad sets (mean)** | | Software Development | 260 | 888 | 14 | 25.6 | 29 | 80.5 | | IT Services and IT Consulting | 298 | 1,444 | 17 | 44.3 | 36 | 111.3 | | Technology, Information and Internet | 559 | 1,356 | 23 | 30.0 | 44 | 86.7 | | Advertising Services | 164 | 547 | 11 | 19.6 | 26 | 273.3 | | Marketing Services | 262 | 539 | 14 | 20.4 | 32 | 147.0 | ## **3) How many target accounts were reached?** **Typical vs Top performers (context)** - Typical company (overall medians): **2,518 target accounts/mo**, **5,842 total** - Top performers (your cohort): **9,071 total target accounts** (median) ### **By country** | **Country** | **Target accounts total (median)** | **Target accounts total (mean)** | **Target accounts /mo (median)** | **Target accounts /mo (mean)** | | United States | 5,784 | 8,486.0 | 2,477 | 4,136.1 | | United Kingdom | 6,278 | 12,451.0 | 2,550 | 5,326.5 | | Poland | 4,284 | 5,200.0 | 1,910 | 2,260.4 | | Netherlands | 10,960 | 14,651.0 | 4,356 | 5,012.0 | | Germany | 3,886 | 5,187.4 | 1,833 | 2,335.4 | ### **By company size (employee brackets)** | **Employee bracket** | **Target accounts total (median)** | **Target accounts total (mean)** | **Target accounts /mo (median)** | **Target accounts /mo (mean)** | | 1–10 | 3,450 | 5,201.0 | 1,906 | 2,824.4 | | 11–50 | 6,462 | 11,327.0 | 2,640 | 4,370.3 | | 51–200 | 6,029 | 10,626.0 | 2,391 | 4,435.7 | | 201–500 | 8,299 | 11,304.0 | 2,946 | 4,373.5 | | 501–1k | 9,557 | 12,126.0 | 3,097 | 4,558.0 | | 1k–5k | 22,669 | 22,669.0 | 10,016 | 10,016.3 | | 5k–10k | 2,440 | 5,128.0 | 1,140 | 1,489.2 | | 10k+ | 7,924 | 9,238.0 | 3,625 | 4,201.3 | | Unknown | 5,086 | 7,524.0 | 2,300 | 3,509.8 | ### **By industry** | **Industry** | **Target accounts total (median)** | **Target accounts total (mean)** | **Target accounts /mo (median)** | **Target accounts /mo (mean)** | | Software Development | 5,597 | 10,308.0 | 2,424 | 4,376.6 | | IT Services and IT Consulting | 5,818 | 11,676.0 | 2,464 | 4,909.1 | | Technology, Information and Internet | 7,275 | 12,397.0 | 3,390 | 5,767.7 | | Advertising Services | 6,112 | 9,347.0 | 2,807 | 4,158.0 | | Marketing Services | 4,381 | 5,585.0 | 2,181 | 2,809.9 | ## **4) CTR, CPC, CPM — ad performance benchmarks** **Typical vs Top performers (context)** - Typical company (overall medians): **CTR 0.69%**, **CPC $5.53**, **CPM $40.15** - Top performers (your cohort): **CTR 0.21%**, **CPC $21.91**, **CPM $56.62** ### **By country** | **Country** | **CTR (median)** | **CPC (median)** | **CPM (median)** | **CTR (mean)** | **CPC (mean)** | **CPM (mean)** | | United States | 0.92% | $5.81 | $57.79 | 1.36% | $10.66 | $81.48 | | United Kingdom | 0.55% | $4.24 | $31.93 | 1.14% | $10.77 | $61.98 | | Poland | 0.66% | $4.38 | $29.55 | 1.24% | $9.76 | $60.67 | | Netherlands | 0.83% | $5.29 | $44.47 | 1.21% | $10.20 | $72.70 | | Germany | 0.39% | $3.18 | $23.54 | 0.71% | $8.85 | $51.75 | ### **By company size (employee brackets)** | **Employee bracket** | **CTR (median)** | **CPC (median)** | **CPM (median)** | **CTR (mean)** | **CPC (mean)** | **CPM (mean)** | | 1–10 | 0.43% | $5.32 | $32.74 | 0.85% | $10.36 | $60.56 | | 11–50 | 0.62% | $5.47 | $39.98 | 1.12% | $10.83 | $70.33 | | 51–200 | 0.84% | $5.62 | $39.74 | 1.47% | $10.13 | $70.87 | | 201–500 | 1.08% | $5.69 | $49.52 | 1.57% | $10.60 | $76.99 | | 501–1k | 0.73% | $7.05 | $40.78 | 1.21% | $11.68 | $66.55 | | 1k–5k | 1.19% | $6.73 | $83.12 | 1.19% | $6.73 | $83.12 | | 5k–10k | 1.57% | $6.13 | $56.62 | 1.65% | $6.98 | $58.13 | | 10k+ | 1.02% | $5.78 | $30.00 | 1.14% | $9.78 | $58.40 | | Unknown | 0.74% | $5.31 | $39.36 | 1.13% | $11.29 | $70.23 | ### **By industry** | **Industry** | **CTR (median)** | **CPC (median)** | **CPM (median)** | **CTR (mean)** | **CPC (mean)** | **CPM (mean)** | | Software Development | 0.80% | $5.59 | $42.50 | 1.27% | $11.13 | $72.16 | | IT Services and IT Consulting | 0.61% | $4.86 | $34.38 | 1.20% | $12.12 | $70.94 | | Technology, Information and Internet | 1.28% | $6.73 | $48.67 | 1.40% | $9.09 | $74.06 | | Advertising Services | 1.12% | $5.47 | $39.77 | 1.24% | $11.55 | $69.67 | | Marketing Services | 0.64% | $4.77 | $30.31 | 0.87% | $10.91 | $55.26 | ## **5) Efficiency: Pipeline per $ and ROAS (plus influenced pipeline per month)** **Typical vs Top performers (context)** - Typical company (your earlier benchmark): **Pipeline/$ 5.21**, **ROAS 1.62**, influenced pipeline **$13,819/mo** (median) - Top performers (your cohort): **Pipeline/$ 15.20**, **ROAS 2.79**, influenced pipeline **$106,500/mo** (median) **Note:** pipeline attribution is only present for a subset of companies in the dataset; segment tables below reflect only companies with these fields populated. ### **By country** | **Country** | **Influenced pipeline /mo (median)** | **Influenced pipeline /mo (mean)** | **Pipeline per $ (median)** | **Pipeline per $ (mean)** | **ROAS (median)** | **ROAS (mean)** | | United States | $36,666 | $74,233 | 6.89 | 11.21 | 1.64 | 2.89 | | United Kingdom | $5,000 | $5,000 | 1.47 | 1.47 | 18,025.00 | 18,025.00 | | Netherlands | $34,950 | $99,117 | 0.26 | 8.89 | — | — | ### **By company size (employee brackets)** | **Employee bracket** | **Influenced pipeline /mo (median)** | **Influenced pipeline /mo (mean)** | **Pipeline per $ (median)** | **Pipeline per $ (mean)** | **ROAS (median)** | **ROAS (mean)** | | 1–10 | $4,000 | $4,000 | 0.92 | 0.92 | 0.26 | 0.26 | | 11–50 | $13,000 | $64,342 | 4.82 | 8.18 | 1.65 | 2.40 | | 51–200 | $40,000 | $871,018 | 7.11 | 25.70 | 1.65 | 645.88 | | 201–500 | — | — | — | — | — | — | | 501–1k | — | — | — | — | — | — | | 1k–5k | $47,500 | $107,452 | 0.53 | 0.86 | 0.08 | 0.10 | | 5k–10k | $1,833 | $1,833 | 0.28 | 0.28 | 0.09 | 0.09 | | 10k+ | — | — | — | — | — | — | | Unknown | $28,000 | $44,228 | 8.92 | 17.15 | 2.06 | 217.71 | ### **By industry** | **Industry** | **Influenced pipeline /mo (median)** | **Influenced pipeline /mo (mean)** | **Pipeline per $ (median)** | **Pipeline per $ (mean)** | **ROAS (median)** | **ROAS (mean)** | | Software Development | $35,000 | $100,350 | 6.89 | 15.59 | 1.63 | 442.34 | ## **6) Deal Open Rate (Deals opened ÷ Target accounts)** **Typical vs Top performers (context)** - Typical company (your benchmark): **0.58%** (median) - Top performers (your cohort): **0.66%** (median) ### **By country** | **Country** | **Deal open rate (median)** | **Deal open rate (mean)** | | United States | 0.18% | 0.55% | | United Kingdom | 0.14% | 0.16% | ### **By company size (employee brackets)** | **Employee bracket** | **Deal open rate (median)** | **Deal open rate (mean)** | | 1–10 | 0.06% | 0.06% | | 11–50 | 0.20% | 0.46% | | 51–200 | 0.25% | 0.73% | | 201–500 | 0.17% | 0.29% | | 501–1k | 0.05% | 0.05% | | 1k–5k | 0.16% | 0.16% | | 5k–10k | — | — | | 10k+ | 0.02% | 0.02% | | Unknown | 0.22% | 0.75% | ### **By industry** | **Industry** | **Deal open rate (median)** | **Deal open rate (mean)** | | Software Development | 0.19% | 0.52% | ## **Report Details: Company Demographics** - Average and median company size  - Average and median company employee number  - Company industries – split by % - Company countries – split by % **Average & median company sizes**  - **Average company size (employees): 420** - **Median company size (employees): 43 (=most companies in the study were around this size)** **Employee size bands (share of companies with employee count available):** | **Company size band** | **Count** | **%** | | 1–10 | 29 | 15.4% | | 11–50 | 71 | 37.8% | | 51–200 | 63 | 33.5% | | 201–500 | 13 | 6.9% | | 501–1k | 3 | 1.6% | | 1k–5k | 6 | 3.2% | | 5k–10k | 0 | 0.0% | | 10k+ | 3 | 1.6% | **Company industries (split by %)** ## **Coverage** - Industry available for **180 / 199** companies ## **Top industries** | **Industry** | **Count** | **% of companies with industry** | | Software Development | 67 | 37.2% | | IT Services and IT Consulting | 19 | 10.6% | | Advertising Services | 16 | 8.9% | | Technology, Information and Internet | 15 | 8.3% | | Marketing Services | 9 | 5.0% | | Financial Services | 7 | 3.9% | | Information Technology and Services | 7 | 3.9% | | Computer and Network Security | 5 | 2.8% | | Transportation, Logistics, Supply Chain and Storage | 3 | 1.7% | | Business Consulting and Services | 3 | 1.7% | | **Other (combined)** | 29 | **16.0%** | **Company countries (split by %)** **Coverage** - Country available for **174 / 211** companies | **Country** | **Count** | **% of companies with country** | | United States | 59 | 33.9% | | United Kingdom | 30 | 17.2% | | Poland | 9 | 5.2% | | Netherlands | 9 | 5.2% | | Germany | 8 | 4.6% | | India | 6 | 3.4% | | Spain | 6 | 3.4% | | Sweden | 5 | 2.9% | | France | 4 | 2.3% | | Croatia | 4 | 2.3% | | **Other (combined)** | 34 | **19.6%** | | **Monthly** **Ad spend by company size, industry and country:** | **Companies with TOTAL Ad Spend present: 199** **Total ad spend (across those 199): $5,536,829.22** - **Typical monthly spend (n=199):** Mean monthly ad spend **$8,788/mo**. In practice, most teams sit under **$6,918/mo**, while “scaled” ABM budgets start showing up around **$19,989+/mo** and can go as high as **$147,682/mo**. - **Larger companies spend more:** - The highest-spend company tier is **1k–5k employees** at **$68,249/mo mean** and **$70,159/mo median**.  - Mid-market brackets drop sharply: **201–500** at **$10,512 mean / $6,915 median**,  - **51–200** at **$8,697 / $4,507**, -  and **11–50** at **$4,892 / $2,175**. - **Ad Spend by Country:** **US-based teams set the “budget ceiling”:** The **US** is the largest segment and also the biggest spender: **$12,741/mo mean** and **$3,998/mo median**. The next biggest markets in this dataset are **Unknown** (**$7,514 / $2,875**) and **UK** (**$4,869 / $2,469**) – and together these three [account for ](/blog/demandbase-vs-rollworks)**59.3%** of companies with spend, so they heavily shape what “average” looks like. - **Ad Spend by Industry:** **Software Development is the most reliable industry baseline:** It’s the biggest segment and therefore the most stable benchmark: **$7,804/mo mean** and **$3,237/mo median**. Next-largest buckets are smaller and more volatile: **IT Services & Consulting** at **$6,696 / $1,690**, and **Technology, Information & Internet** at **$7,878 / $2,502**. - **Financial Services is a “whale” vertical:** Financial Services shows very high budgets on average (**$47,521/mo mean**) but a much lower “typical” budget (**$5,208/mo median**). That gap is a strong signal the vertical includes **a few very large ABM programs** rather than uniformly high spend across all FinTech teams. - **Average & Median Monthly Ad spend by country:** | **Country** | **Companies (with spend)** | **Mean monthly spend (company avg)** | **Median monthly spend** | **Weighted monthly spend** | **Total spend** | **Active months (sum)** | | United States | 55 | $12,740.00 | $3,997.24 | $12,925.61 | $2,223,205.23 | 172 | | Unknown / missing | 35 | $7,513.15 | $2,874.95 | $10,127.68 | $1,367,236.42 | 135 | | Netherlands | 9 | $35,260.19 | $4,229.56 | $28,336.62 | $736,752.22 | 26 | | United Kingdom | 28 | $4,868.60 | $2,468.26 | $3,943.96 | $264,245.61 | 67 | | Germany | 8 | $5,460.00 | $2,950.68 | $5,058.30 | $156,807.45 | 31 | | India | 4 | $17,998.13 | $905.14 | $11,998.75 | $143,985.03 | 12 | | Sweden | 5 | $4,214.66 | $3,074.68 | $8,034.47 | $136,585.92 | 17 | | France | 4 | $3,105.56 | $3,490.04 | $3,765.72 | $82,845.87 | 22 | | Croatia | 4 | $6,678.75 | $3,995.07 | $7,547.41 | $75,474.12 | 10 | | Poland | 9 | $2,481.80 | $1,515.35 | $2,418.87 | $65,309.53 | 27 | | Spain | 6 | $2,787.05 | $2,372.83 | $2,787.05 | $33,444.57 | 12 | | Norway | 2 | $7,734.28 | $7,734.28 | $7,734.28 | $30,937.10 | 4 | | Brazil | 2 | $7,118.02 | $7,118.02 | $7,118.02 | $28,472.06 | 4 | | Austria | 4 | $2,174.38 | $2,174.38 | $3,503.01 | $28,024.09 | 8 | | Belgium | 2 | $1,745.86 | $1,745.86 | $4,443.15 | $26,658.87 | 6 | | Estonia | 1 | $12,236.48 | $12,236.48 | $12,236.48 | $24,472.95 | 2 | | Denmark | 2 | $1,354.83 | $1,354.83 | $1,579.32 | $15,793.17 | 10 | | Czechia | 2 | $3,705.31 | $3,705.31 | $3,705.31 | $14,821.23 | 4 | | Finland | 2 | $964.22 | $964.22 | $964.22 | $3,856.90 | 4 | | Switzerland | 1 | $465.46 | $465.46 | $465.46 | $3,723.70 | 8 | | Malta | 1 | $600.44 | $600.44 | $600.44 | $3,602.63 | 6 | | United Arab Emirates | 1 | $654.74 | $654.74 | $654.74 | $1,309.47 | 2 | | Pakistan | 1 | $417.19 | $417.19 | $417.19 | $417.19 | 1 | ## **Average Monthly LinkedIn ABM Ad spend by industry:** | **Industry** | **Companies (with spend)** | **Avg Ad Spend** | **Median Ad Spend** | **Total Ad Spend** | | Software Development | 65 | $23,588.75 | $9,369.03 | $1,533,268.89 | | IT Services and IT Consulting | 16 | $13,769.92 | $4,770.03 | $220,318.79 | | Advertising Services | 15 | $13,273.27 | $2,779.01 | $199,099.00 | | Technology, Information and Internet | 15 | $18,835.13 | $7,303.82 | $282,526.88 | | Marketing Services | 9 | $20,416.32 | $2,408.85 | $183,746.90 | | Financial Services | 6 | $95,040.16 | $10,415.10 | $570,240.99 | | Human Resources Services | 5 | $12,382.21 | $9,983.87 | $61,911.04 | | Computer and Network Security | 5 | $8,052.90 | $5,515.76 | $40,264.50 | | Staffing and Recruiting | 4 | $38,270.35 | $1,887.60 | $153,081.40 | | Business Consulting and Services | 3 | $11,132.32 | $10,928.31 | $33,396.96 | | Transportation, Logistics, Supply Chain and Storage | 3 | $19,844.18 | $15,749.36 | $59,532.55 | | Public Relations and Communications Services | 2 | $40,010.50 | $40,010.50 | $80,021.00 | | Non-profit Organizations | 2 | $33,942.34 | $33,942.34 | $67,884.68 | | Information Services | 2 | $9,944.88 | $9,944.88 | $19,889.76 | | Legal Services | 2 | $6,278.83 | $6,278.83 | $12,557.66 | | Retail | 2 | $3,145.39 | $3,145.39 | $6,290.78 | | Real Estate | 2 | $2,203.46 | $2,203.46 | $4,406.92 | | Embedded Software Products | 1 | $251,851.54 | $251,851.54 | $251,851.54 | | Food & Beverages | 1 | $130,261.69 | $130,261.69 | $130,261.69 | | Computer Software | 1 | $7,434.62 | $7,434.62 | $7,434.62 | | Events Services | 1 | $7,181.62 | $7,181.62 | $7,181.62 | | E-learning Providers | 1 | $7,072.35 | $7,072.35 | $7,072.35 | | Telecommunications | 1 | $6,971.13 | $6,971.13 | $6,971.13 | | Insurance | 1 | $5,037.00 | $5,037.00 | $5,037.00 | | Oil and Gas | 1 | $4,472.60 | $4,472.60 | $4,472.60 | | International Trade and Development | 1 | $4,427.38 | $4,427.38 | $4,427.38 | | Internet Publishing | 1 | $3,490.91 | $3,490.91 | $3,490.91 | | Accounting | 1 | $2,938.04 | $2,938.04 | $2,938.04 | | Construction | 1 | $2,418.04 | $2,418.04 | $2,418.04 | | Climate Data and Analytics | 1 | $9,012.95 | $9,012.95 | $9,012.95 | | Outsourcing and Offshoring Consulting | 1 | $1,948.88 | $1,948.88 | $1,948.88 | | Software as a Service (SaaS) | 1 | $1,390.48 | $1,390.48 | $1,390.48 | | Professional Training and Coaching | 1 | $863.03 | $863.03 | $863.03 | ## **Average Monthly LinkedIn ABM ad spend by company size:** | **Company size bracket** | **Companies (with spend)** | **Avg Ad Spend** | **Median Ad Spend** | **Total Ad Spend** | | 1–10 | 27 | $16,431.65 | $2,128.83 | $443,654.49 | | 11–50 | 67 | $13,079.72 | $5,385.65 | $876,341.22 | | 51–200 | 61 | $35,403.04 | $9,983.87 | $2,159,585.25 | | 201–500 | 13 | $26,912.96 | $14,783.90 | $349,868.45 | | 501–1k | 2 | $2,723.47 | $2,723.47 | $5,446.95 | | 1k–5k | 5 | $136,422.67 | $140,317.80 | $682,113.35 | | 5k–10k | 0 | | | | | 10k+ | 2 | $67,939.44 | $67,939.44 | $135,878.88 | | Unknown | 22 | $40,179.12 | $5,510.59 | $883,940.63 | ## **Average & Median monthly ad spend by employee bracket:**  | **Revenue bracket** | **Companies (with spend)** | **Avg Ad Spend** | **Median Ad Spend** | **Total Ad Spend** | | <$1M | 36 | $15,801.28 | $4,053.58 | $568,846.04 | | $1–5M | 33 | $23,493.25 | $6,445.40 | $775,277.24 | | $5–10M | 28 | $46,276.79 | $9,538.00 | $1,295,749.99 | | $10–25M | 9 | $19,694.73 | $5,695.37 | $177,252.57 | | $25–50M | 5 | $55,476.24 | $10,415.10 | $277,381.21 | | $50–100M | 3 | $48,986.78 | $5,695.37 | $146,960.33 | | $100–250M | 4 | $136,451.62 | $124,196.22 | $545,806.48 | | $250–500M | 6 | $21,516.17 | $3,396.47 | $129,097.00 | | $500M–$1B | 1 | $13,268.56 | $13,268.56 | $13,268.56 | | $1B+ | 0 | | | | | Unknown | 73 | $23,875.80 | $5,565.77 | $1,742,933.13 | Number of ABM and LinkedIn Campaigns [ABM by company](/blog/linkedin-abm-advertising-analytics) size, industry and country Number of Campaigns run by country, industry, and Company Size **1) Country – United States leads the pack, with UK and…the Netherlands following closely** - United States teams are the clear baseline: with 59 companies, they [average 31.8 LinkedIn](/blog/linkedin-ads-benchmarks) Campaign Groups and 104.1 LinkedIn Campaigns per team. - United Kingdom [teams run fewer campaign](/blog/best-abm-marketing-tools) groups (22.9) but a much higher number of LinkedIn Campaigns (172.4), indicating heavier segmentation inside fewer structures. - Netherlands stands out among mid-sized samples (9 companies) with 229.7 LinkedIn Campaigns on average — one of the highest execution volumes in the dataset. - Smaller-country segments (India, Austria, Australia) show high campaign counts relative to group count, but with limited sample sizes they should be read as directional. ## **2) Company size – larger companies operate on a larger scale not only in terms of ad spend, but also volume – they are running more campaigns** - 1–10 employees: \~17 campaign groups and 34 campaigns — relatively simple setups. - 11–50 employees: \~20 groups and 98 campaigns — a sharp jump in execution volume. - 51–200 employees: \~29 groups and 98 campaigns — similar campaign volume to the prior bracket, but more structural segmentation. - 201–500 employees: \~38 groups and 154 campaigns — complexity increases meaningfully with scale. - 1k–5k employees: \~36 groups and 387 campaigns — fewer structures than expected, but very high campaign volume. - 10k+ employees: \~148 groups and 293 campaigns — extreme segmentation inside LinkedIn, even with few companies in this bracket. ### **3) Industry – Agencies (Advertising Services) obviously run the most campaigns; FinTech, IT (Services and Consluting) and SaaS (Software Development) follow in terms of volume** - Software Development (largest segment) averages 24.5 campaign groups and 76.9 campaigns, making it the most stable reference point. - Advertising Services is the most execution-heavy: 273.3 campaigns on average with only 20.1 groups — very high throughput per structure. - IT Services & IT Consulting teams run many groups (48.0) and 103.1 campaigns, signaling broad, multi-stream LinkedIn programs. - Financial Services and [Marketing Services both skew high on campaign](/blog/how-to-build-an-abm-strategy) volume (200.4 and 147.0 campaigns, respectively). - The “Unknown” industry bucket shows consistently high activity (31.4 groups, 95.4 campaigns), behaving more like a power-user segment than a long tail. ## **Average Number of ABM and LinkedIn Campaigns by country**  | **Country** | **Companies** | **Avg ABM campaigns** | **Avg LinkedIn Campaign Groups** | **Avg LinkedIn Campaigns** | | United States | 59 | 2.6 | 31.8 | 104.1 | | Unknown | 37 | 1.6 | 27.5 | 59.1 | | United Kingdom | 30 | 1.5 | 22.9 | 172.4 | | Poland | 9 | 1.7 | 28.7 | 47.2 | | Netherlands | 9 | 2.0 | 29.1 | 229.7 | | Germany | 8 | 1.4 | 10.1 | 45.9 | | Spain | 6 | 1.0 | 15.8 | 46.5 | | India | 6 | 1.0 | 16.5 | 168.2 | | Sweden | 5 | 1.0 | 12.6 | 35.6 | | Croatia | 4 | 2.5 | 27.8 | 48.5 | | France | 4 | 1.7 | 22.2 | 30.2 | | Austria | 3 | 1.0 | 39.0 | 124.3 | | Australia | 3 | 1.0 | 38.3 | 47.3 | | Canada | 3 | — | 25.3 | 64.0 | | Denmark | 2 | 2.5 | 36.5 | 117.0 | | Finland | 2 | 1.0 | 18.0 | 31.0 | | Lithuania | 2 | 1.0 | 20.5 | 30.5 | | Malta | 2 | 1.0 | 33.5 | 62.5 | | Norway | 2 | 2.0 | 12.5 | 21.0 | | Switzerland | 2 | 1.0 | 14.5 | 29.5 | ## **Average Number of ABM and LinkedIn Campaigns by Industry:** | **Industry** | **Companies** | **Avg ABM campaigns** | **Avg LinkedIn Campaign Groups** | **Avg LinkedIn Campaigns** | | Software Development | 67 | 1.6 | 24.5 | 76.9 | | Unknown | 31 | 3.1 | 31.4 | 95.4 | | IT Services and IT Consulting | 19 | 1.3 | 48.0 | 103.1 | | Advertising Services | 16 | 1.0 | 20.1 | 273.3 | | Technology, Information and Internet | 15 | 1.6 | 23.2 | 71.3 | | Marketing Services | 9 | 1.2 | 19.9 | 147.0 | | Financial Services | 7 | 1.2 | 21.9 | 200.4 | | Information Technology and Services | 7 | 1.0 | 27.9 | 65.6 | | Computer and Network Security | 5 | 1.0 | 11.8 | 86.0 | | Business Consulting and Services | 3 | — | 39.0 | 109.0 | | E-Learning Providers | 3 | 1.0 | 13.7 | 41.3 | | Events Services | 2 | 1.0 | 7.0 | 9.5 | | Public Relations and Communications Services | 2 | 3.0 | 16.0 | 55.0 | | IT System Custom Software Development | 2 | 1.0 | 6.5 | 12.0 | | (other industries…) | (see file) | | | | ## **Average Number of ABM and LinkedIn Campaigns by company size (brackets)**  | **Company size bracket** | **Companies** | **Avg ABM campaigns** | **Avg LinkedIn Campaign Groups** | **Avg LinkedIn Campaigns** | | 1–10 | 29 | 1.9 | 17.1 | 34.3 | | 11–50 | 71 | 1.5 | 19.8 | 97.5 | | 51–200 | 63 | 2.5 | 28.5 | 97.8 | | 201–500 | 13 | 1.3 | 37.6 | 154.2 | | 501–1k | 3 | 1.5 | 18.7 | 91.7 | | 1k–5k | 6 | 1.0 | 35.7 | 386.7 | | 10k+ | 3 | — | 148.0 | 293.0 | | Unknown | 23 | 1.3 | 28.3 | 67.7 | ## **Linkedin ABM Campaign Setup:**  - Number of Companies targeted - Number of Ads/ LinkedIn Ad Sets/ [LinkedIn Campaigns Run](/blog/ai-for-abm-linkedin) - Influence Threshold - Number of Intents Tracked - Total [ABM Budget](/blog/how-to-estimate-how-much-budget-you-will-need-for-your-abm-campaigns) - Monthly [ABM Budget](/blog/abm-strategy-guide)  ## **Quick executive takeaways:** ### The “typical” company targets **\~4.4k accounts/month** on average (and **\~10.5k lifetime**). - [**Teams run on average** ](/blog/best-abm-marketing-tools)\~26 campaign groups and **\~100 ad sets**, but nearly **\~900 ads** — suggesting many teams iterate heavily at the ad/creative layer. - **Intent tracking coverage is low** in the dataset (**only 54** companies have values), so treat intent averages as directional, not a core benchmark. - Average budgets align with what we already saw: **\~$27.8k total spend** and **\~$8.8k/month** average monthly [ABM budget](/blog/abm-marketing-strategy-guide). | **Metric** | **Overall average** | **N (companies)** | | **Number of Companies targeted (monthly average)** | **4,398.0** | 210 | | **Number of Companies targeted (total / lifetime)** | **10,454.2** | 210 | | **Number of LinkedIn Ads** | **890.9** | 181 | | **Number of LinkedIn Campaign Groups** | **26.3** | 211 | | **Number of [LinkedIn Campaigns / Ad Sets](/blog/how-to-set-up-linkedin-campaign-manager-hubspot-integration-and-why-theres-a-smarter-way) | **100.1** | 210 | | **Influence Threshold** | **4,761.3** | 211 | | **Number of Intents Tracked** | **2.5** | 54 | | **Total [ABM Budget](/blog/b2b-abm-strategy-the-ultimate-guide) (Total Ad Spend)** | **$27,824** | 199 | | **Monthly ABM Budget (avg per company)** | **$8,788** | 199 | ## **Number of Ads/ LinkedIn Ad Sets/ LinkedIn Campaigns Run by Company Size** Here’s the **overall** breakdown (average + median) for **ads, campaigns/ad sets, and campaign groups**: | **Metric** | **Average** | **Median** | **N (companies)** | | **LinkedIn Ads** | **891** | **247** | **181** | | **LinkedIn Campaigns (Ad sets)** | **100** | **28** | **210** | | **LinkedIn Campaign Groups** | **26** | **16** | **211** | ## **Number of LinkedIn ABM Ads** **Creative volume scales sharply with company size (step-change at mid-market):** - **1–10 employees:** **40** ads avg - **11–50:** **316** - **51–200:** **973** - **201–500:** **1,582** - **1k–5k:** **4,501** *(highest)* This isn’t linear growth — it’s a **structural shift** once teams move from “a few experiments” to **always-on, multi-audience ABM** where ads need rotation and refresh to sustain delivery. **Smaller teams aren’t “under-testing” – they’re running a different motion:** Averages under **\~300–1,000 ads** typically indicate **fewer parallel plays** (often 1 ICP segment, 1–2 personas, limited retargeting layers). That’s normal for SMB ABM and it’s the **right constraint** until the team has enough spend and account coverage to learn fast. **Enterprise-like teams concentrate more volume into ads than programs:** The **1k–5k** bracket runs the most ads (**4,501 avg**) even though earlier we saw [**ABM program](/blog/benefits-of-an-abm-strategy) counts don’t rise proportionally**. Interpretation: scaled teams often run **fewer core programs**, but each program has **high creative depth** across personas/segments/angles and continuous refresh. **Country leaders (by creative volume) point to where ABM is most “mature” structurally:** - **Netherlands:** **1,775** ads avg (n=9) - **US:** **1,098** (n=59) - **UK:** **804** (n=30) The US is the most reliable benchmark because of sample size; Netherlands looks “high maturity” but should be treated as directional due to smaller n. **Vertical differences are huge — agencies + regulated industries drive the biggest ad libraries:** - **Marketing Services:** **2,622** ads avg - **Financial Services:** **2,537** - **Advertising Services:** **1,357** Compared to **Software Development** at **657**, these categories run **much deeper creative libraries**, usually because they support multiple client programs (agencies) or require heavier segmentation + message testing (FinServ). **Baseline benchmark for [B2B SaaS ABM](/blog/real-world-examples-of-abm) readers:** If you’re a typical B2B software team, **Software Development (n=67)** is your best reference point: **\~657 ads per company on average**. Use this as the “default expectation” and then calibrate up/down by company size and region. **Data-quality note that matters for interpretation:** There’s a large **Unknown** industry bucket (**31 companies**) with very high average (**1,710 ads**) — this can inflate global comparisons. For reporting, anchor benchmarks on clearly classified segments (e.g., Software Development, US/UK). | **Company size bracket** | **Companies** | **Avg # LinkedIn Ads** | | 1–10 | 29 | 40 | | 11–50 | 71 | 316 | | 51–200 | 63 | 973 | | 201–500 | 13 | 1,582 | | 501–1k | 3 | 1,446 | | 1k–5k | 6 | 4,501 | | 10k+ | 3 | 1,370 | | Unknown | 23 | 785 | ## **Number of Linkedin Ads Run – by  Country, Company size, Employee count (quartiles), and Industry.** Below is the **full breakdown of the number of LinkedIn ads run** (“Number of linkedin ads”), showing **average + median** by **Country, Company size, Employee count (quartiles), and Industry**. ### **Quick read:** - **Bigger orgs run more ads**: median ads jump from **106–132** (≤50 employees) → **589** (51–200) → **1,182** (201–500) → **3,024** (1k–5k). - By **country**, the largest samples show medians of **US: 309**, **UK: 254**, **Unknown: 149**. - By **industry**, **Software Development** is the biggest base segment with **median 154 ads**, while **IT Services & IT Consulting** has a higher median (**589**). **Executive summary: Number of LinkedIn ads run (avg + median)** - **The distribution is extremely skewed (medians tell the “typical” story; averages reflect a few very ad-heavy teams).** - Example: in the **US**, the **median is 309 ads** while the **average is 1,074** — meaning most teams run a few hundred ads, but a handful run **thousands**, pulling the mean up. - Same pattern in the **UK** (**median 254**, **avg 970**) and **Unknown** (**median 149**, **avg 435**). - **Company size is the cleanest driver: bigger orgs run materially more ads.** - **1–10:** median **132** ads (avg **301**) - **11–50:** median **106** (avg **406**) — median slightly lower than the smallest bracket, but still “\~100-ish” typical volume - **51–200:** median **589** (avg **823**) — this is the first bracket where *typical* execution jumps into the high hundreds - **201–500:** median **1,182** (avg **1,020**) — “\~1k ads” becomes normal here - **1k–5k:** median **3,024** (avg **6,122**) — thousands of ads is standard at this size - **10k+:** avg/median **11,375** (but only **2 companies** with ads values — treat as directional) - **Light interpretation:** once you get past \~50 employees, teams tend to support more parallel streams (segments, personas, creatives, languages, regions), which shows up as a step-change in ad volume. - **Employee quartiles show the same scaling effect (and confirm it’s not just the bracket labels).** - Q1–Q2 medians are **\~106–132 ads** - Q3 median is **254** - Q4 median is **589**, while the **average jumps to 2,439** (again: a few very large ad libraries) - **Country pattern: US/UK are “high-volume baselines”; some smaller countries show very high averages that look like outlier behavior rather than a typical norm.** - “Benchmark-stable” medians: **US 309**, **UK 254**, **Unknown 149** - **Netherlands** has a very high **avg (4,011)** and a high **median (537)** across **9 companies**, suggesting systematically larger ad libraries there than most countries in the set. - Countries with **1–3 companies** can look extreme (e.g., Canada avg/median 1,301 on 2 companies with ad values) — those are best read as examples. - **Industry pattern: Software Development is the baseline; services-heavy categories tend to run larger ad libraries.** - **Software Development (largest segment):** median **154** (avg **613**) → solid “default” benchmark. - **IT Services & IT Consulting:** median **589** (avg **1,035**) → consistently higher ad volume than software product companies. - **Advertising Services:** median **185** (avg **1,212**) → typical isn’t massively higher than software, but some teams run huge libraries (mean shoots up). - **Financial Services:** median **58** (avg **1,140**) → the biggest *skew* signal: most are small libraries, a few are enormous. **One-line takeaway:** **Medians scale sharply with org size (hundreds → thousands of ads), while averages are dominated by a small number of “ad factories,” especially visible in the US/UK and in service-heavy industries.** ## **1) Number of ads by Country** | **Country** | **Companies** | **Companies w/ ads value** | **Avg # LinkedIn ads** | **Median # LinkedIn ads** | | United States | 59 | 49 | 1,074 | 309 | | Unknown | 37 | 31 | 435 | 149 | | United Kingdom | 30 | 21 | 970 | 254 | | Netherlands | 9 | 9 | 4,011 | **537** | | Poland | 9 | 8 | 435 | **456** | | Germany | 8 | 8 | 284 | 91 | | Spain | 6 | 4 | 191 | 112 | | India | 6 | 5 | 1,110 | 176 | | Sweden | 5 | 4 | 418 | 85 | | Croatia | 4 | 3 | 371 | 146 | | France | 4 | 4 | 104 | 77 | | Austria | 3 | 3 | 195 | 120 | | Australia | 3 | 3 | 340 | 169 | | Canada | 3 | 2 | 1,301 | 1,301 | | Denmark | 2 | 2 | 1,166 | 1,166 | | Finland | 2 | 2 | 77 | 77 | | Lithuania | 2 | 2 | 54 | 54 | | Malta | 2 | 2 | 226 | 226 | | Norway | 2 | 2 | 21 | 21 | | Switzerland | 2 | 1 | 89 | 89 | | Belgium | 1 | 1 | 1,174 | 1,174 | | Brazil | 2 | 2 | 1,142 | 1,142 | | Czechia | 2 | 2 | 79 | 79 | | Estonia | 1 | 1 | 1,369 | 1,369 | | Hong Kong SAR | 2 | 2 | 87 | 87 | | Israel | 1 | 1 | 35 | 35 | | Lithuania | | | | | | Pakistan | 1 | 1 | 2,918 | 2,918 | | Singapore | 1 | 0 | — | — | | Slovakia | 1 | 1 | 177 | 177 | | Turkey | 1 | 1 | 74 | 74 | | United Arab Emirates | 1 | 1 | 6 | 6 | ## **2) Number of LinkedIn ABM ads by Company size (brackets)** | **Company size bracket** | **Companies** | **Companies w/ ads value** | **Avg # LinkedIn ads** | **Median # LinkedIn ads** | | 1–10 | 29 | 24 | 301 | 132 | | 11–50 | 71 | 60 | 406 | 106 | | 51–200 | 63 | 55 | 823 | 589 | | 201–500 | 13 | 12 | 1,020 | 1,182 | | 501–1k | 3 | 3 | 1,076 | 58 | | 1k–5k | 6 | 6 | 6,122 | 3,024 | | 10k+ | 3 | 2 | 11,375 | 11,375 | | Unknown | 23 | 19 | 497 | 144 | ## **3) Number of LinkedIn ABM ads by Employee count (quartiles)** | **Employee quartile** | **Companies** | **Companies w/ ads value** | **Avg # LinkedIn ads** | **Median # LinkedIn ads** | | Q1 (lowest) | 47 | 42 | 261 | 106 | | Q2 | 47 | 41 | 299 | 132 | | Q3 | 47 | 40 | 512 | 254 | | Q4 (highest) | 47 | 40 | 2,439 | 589 | | Unknown | 23 | 19 | 497 | 144 | ## **4) Number of ads by Industry** | **Industry** | **Companies** | **Companies w/ ads value** | **Avg # LinkedIn ads** | **Median # LinkedIn ads** | | Software Development | 67 | 57 | 613 | 154 | | Unknown | 31 | 25 | 883 | 206 | | IT Services and IT Consulting | 19 | 17 | 1,035 | 589 | | Advertising Services | 16 | 13 | 1,212 | 185 | | Technology, Information and Internet | 15 | 12 | 429 | 169 | | Marketing Services | 9 | 8 | 372 | 146 | | Financial Services | 7 | 5 | 1,140 | 58 | | Information Technology and Services | 7 | 7 | 248 | 112 | | Computer and Network Security | 5 | 5 | 563 | 35 | | Business Consulting and Services | 3 | 2 | 4,011 | 4,011 | | E-Learning Providers | 3 | 3 | 166 | 74 | | Events Services | 2 | 2 | 21 | 21 | | Public Relations and Communications Services | 2 | 2 | 351 | 351 | | IT System Custom Software Development | 2 | 2 | 12 | 12 | ## **Total LinkedIn ABM Budget** ![ZenABM infographic showing median LinkedIn ABM ad spend of $2,693 per month versus $8,788 average in 2025](https://cdn.zenabm.com/media/ZenABM-LinkedIn-ABM-Budget-2026-1.png) **Annual ABM Budget = (TOTAL Ad Spend ÷ Number of active months) × 12** **Usable companies:** **199 / 211** ### **Executive summary – Annual ABM Budget** - **Overall annualized (monthly budget \*12)  budget level (per company):** - **Median: $32,314 / year** - **Average: $105,454 / year** - **Company size is the clearest budget separator (annualized medians):** - **1k–5k employees (N usable=5): $842,023 median | $818,986 avg** - **10k+ employees (N usable=2): $1,424,641 median | $1,424,641 avg** - **201–500 (N=13): $82,969 median | $126,136 avg** - **51–200 (N=61): $54,078 median | $104,359 avg** - **11–50 (N=67): $26,092 median | $58,701 avg** - **1–10 (N=27): $12,419 median | $79,020 avg** - **Countries with the biggest budgets (annualized):** - **United States (N=55): $47,967 median | $152,880 avg** - **Netherlands (N=9): $50,755 median | $423,122 avg** - **United Kingdom (N=28): $29,619 median | $58,423 avg** - **Poland (N=9): $18,184 median | $29,782 avg** - **Unknown (N=35): $34,499 median | $90,158 avg** - **Industries with the biggest budgets (annualized):** - **Financial Services (N=6): $62,491 median | $570,241 avg** - **Software Development (N=65): $38,833 median | $94,743 avg** - **Advertising Services (N=15): $37,022 median | $104,669 avg** - **IT Services & IT Consulting (N=16): $20,294 median | $83,458 avg** - **Technology, Information & Internet (N=15): $30,023 median | $94,530 avg** | **Top spender** | **Annual ABM Budget (annualized)** | | **Company size bracket** | **Country** | **Industry** | | **Spender #1** | **$1,772,181** | | **1k–5k** | **Netherlands** | **Financial Services** | | **Spender #2** | **$1,511,109** | | **11–50** | **United States** | **Embedded Software Products** | | **Spender #3** | **$1,476,337** | | **1k–5k** | **Netherlands** | **Financial Services** | | **Spender #4** | **$841,907** | | **1k–5k** | **India** | **Marketing Services** | | **Spender #5** | **$764,962** | | **1–10** | **United States** | **Advertising Services** | ## **Annual LinkedIn ABM Budget — overall (average + median)** | **Metric** | **Average** | **Median** | **N (companies)** | | Annual ABM Budget (annualized) | $105,454 | $32,314 | 199 | ## **Annual LinkedIn ABM Budget by company size bracket** | **Company size bracket** | **Companies** | **N (usable)** | **Avg Annual ABM Budget** | **Median Annual ABM Budget** | | 1–10 | 29 | 27 | $79,020 | $12,419 | | 11–50 | 71 | 67 | $58,701 | $26,092 | | 51–200 | 63 | 61 | $104,359 | $54,078 | | 201–500 | 13 | 13 | $126,136 | $82,969 | | 501–1k | 3 | 2 | $26,530 | $26,530 | | 1k–5k | 6 | 5 | $818,986 | $842,023 | | 10k+ | 3 | 2 | $1,424,641 | $1,424,641 | | Unknown | 23 | 22 | $88,629 | $33,064 | ## **Annual LinkedIn ABM Budget by employee number quartiles** | **Employee quartile (by # employees)** | **Companies** | **N (usable)** | **Avg Annual ABM Budget** | **Median Annual ABM Budget** | | Q1 (≤19) | 47 | 45 | $62,255 | $14,139 | | Q2 (20–42) | 47 | 43 | $37,394 | $26,435 | | Q3 (43–105) | 47 | 46 | $126,934 | $43,366 | | Q4 (>105) | 47 | 43 | $204,351 | $62,245 | | Unknown | 23 | 22 | $88,629 | $33,064 | ## **Annual ABM Budget by country** | **Country** | **Companies** | **N (usable)** | **Avg Annual ABM Budget** | **Median Annual ABM Budget** | | United States | 59 | 55 | $152,880 | $47,967 | | Unknown | 37 | 35 | $90,158 | $34,499 | | United Kingdom | 30 | 28 | $58,423 | $29,619 | | Poland | 9 | 9 | $29,782 | $18,184 | | Netherlands | 9 | 9 | $423,122 | $50,755 | | Germany | 8 | 8 | $65,520 | $35,408 | | Spain | 6 | 6 | $33,445 | $28,474 | | India | 6 | 4 | $215,978 | $10,862 | | Sweden | 5 | 5 | $50,576 | $36,896 | | Croatia | 4 | 4 | $80,145 | $47,941 | | France | 4 | 4 | $37,267 | $41,880 | | Austria | 3 | 3 | $27,916 | $16,258 | | Australia | 3 | 3 | $40,265 | $26,092 | | Canada | 3 | 3 | $53,318 | $20,950 | | Hong Kong | 2 | 2 | $32,670 | $32,670 | | Denmark | 2 | 2 | $22,547 | $22,547 | | Finland | 2 | 2 | $6,768 | $6,768 | | Lithuania | 2 | 2 | $79,878 | $79,878 | | Malta | 2 | 2 | $36,765 | $36,765 | | Norway | 2 | 2 | $27,338 | $27,338 | | Switzerland | 2 | 2 | $1,280 | $1,280 | | Belgium | 1 | 1 | $87,822 | $87,822 | | Brazil | 1 | 1 | $11,370 | $11,370 | | Czechia | 1 | 1 | $1,500 | $1,500 | | Egypt | 1 | 1 | $30,699 | $30,699 | | Estonia | 1 | 1 | $83,713 | $83,713 | | North Macedonia | 1 | 1 | $89,288 | $89,288 | | Pakistan | 1 | 1 | $18,062 | $18,062 | | Singapore | 1 | 1 | $65,636 | $65,636 | | Slovakia | 1 | 1 | $3,204,000 | $3,204,000 | | Türkiye | 1 | 1 | $23,946 | $23,946 | | United Arab Emirates | 1 | 1 | $2,581 | $2,581 | ## **Annual ABM Budget by industry** | **Industry** | **Companies** | **N (usable)** | **Avg Annual ABM Budget** | **Median Annual ABM Budget** | | Software Development | 67 | 65 | $94,743 | $38,833 | | Unknown | 31 | 30 | $159,446 | $55,750 | | IT Services and IT Consulting | 19 | 16 | $83,458 | $20,294 | | Advertising Services | 16 | 15 | $104,669 | $37,022 | | Technology, Information and Internet | 15 | 15 | $94,530 | $30,023 | | Marketing Services | 9 | 9 | $117,849 | $14,453 | | Financial Services | 7 | 6 | $570,241 | $62,491 | | Information Technology and Services | 7 | 6 | $31,433 | $20,635 | | Computer and Network Security | 5 | 4 | $34,977 | $33,572 | | Transportation, Logistics, Supply Chain and Storage | 3 | 3 | $33,333 | $23,624 | | Business Consulting and Services | 3 | 3 | $111,731 | $76,811 | | E-Learning Providers | 3 | 3 | $29,012 | $20,950 | | Events Services | 2 | 1 | $44,608 | $44,608 | | Information Services | 2 | 2 | $26,883 | $26,883 | | Public Relations and Communications Services | 2 | 2 | $57,536 | $57,536 | | Artificial Intelligence (AI) | 1 | 1 | $7,375 | $7,375 | | Automation Machinery Manufacturing | 1 | 1 | $24,044 | $24,044 | | Banking | 1 | 1 | $8,395 | $8,395 | | Consumer Services | 1 | 1 | $40,758 | $40,758 | | Cybersecurity | 1 | 1 | $20,931 | $20,931 | | Digital Marketing | 1 | 1 | $22,980 | $22,980 | | Embedded Software Products | 1 | 1 | $1,511,109 | $1,511,109 | | Facilities Services | 1 | 1 | $65,637 | $65,637 | | Hospitality | 1 | 1 | $97,956 | $97,956 | | Human Resources Services | 1 | 1 | $744,486 | $744,486 | | Insurance | 1 | 1 | $113 | $113 | | Legal Services | 1 | 1 | $52,348 | $52,348 | | Management Consulting | 1 | 1 | $42,910 | $42,910 | | Outsourcing and Offshoring Consulting | 1 | 1 | $113,269 | $113,269 | | Professional Training and Coaching | 1 | 1 | $67,948 | $67,948 | | Retail | 1 | 1 | $1,539,304 | $1,539,304 | | Staffing and Recruiting | 1 | 1 | $446,692 | $446,692 | | Telecommunications | 1 | 1 | $9,334 | $9,334 | ## **LinkedIn Campaign Performance Benchmarks:** ![LinkedIn Ad format performance table comparing CTR and CPC across TLAs, carousel and video ads](https://cdn.zenabm.com/media/LinkedIn-Ad-format-performance-overview-ZenABM.png) ### **Average number of ad impressions, engagements and clicks, + Average number of ad impressions, engagements and clicks** per campaign, per company reached. ## **Executive summary (impressions, engagements, clicks – TOTAL)** - **Totals per company are heavily skewed (mean ≫ median):** - **Impressions:** median **156,102** vs average **779,738** (≈ **5.0×** gap) - **Engagements:** median **2,256** vs average **12,688** (≈ **5.6×** gap) - **Clicks:** median **1,220** vs average **6,228** (≈ **5.1×** gap) - **“Per [ABM campaign” performance](/blog/ai-prompts-to-analyse-linkedin-ads-campaign-performance-abm) is also skewed (and has smaller coverage):** *(only companies with ABM campaign counts)* - [**Impressions / ABM](/blog/push-linkedin-ad-impressions-to-crm) campaign:** median **108,314** vs average **451,626** (≈ **4.2×**) - [**Engagements / ABM](/blog/abm-engagement-penetration-strategy) campaign:** median **1,410** vs average **12,042** (≈ **8.5×**) - [**Clicks / ABM](/faq/linkedin-ad-clicks-into-crm-for-abm) campaign:** median **818** vs average **5,151** (≈ **6.3×**) - **“Per targeted company” (per account) is much tighter, but still skewed:** - **Impressions / targeted company:** median **27.3** vs average **57.1** (≈ **2.1×**) - [**Engagements / targeted](/blog/measure-linkedin-ad-engagement-target-accounts) company:** median **0.37** vs average **0.92** (≈ **2.5×**) - **Clicks / targeted company:** median **0.20** vs average **0.47** (≈ **2.4×**) - **Company size is the biggest separator for total volume:** - **1k–5k employees** has **median 2,643,559 impressions**, **37,316 engagements**, **16,042 clicks** per company (N=5 with impressions). - Compare: **11–50 employees** has **median 110,395 impressions**, **1,575 engagements**, **996 clicks** (N=67 with impressions). - **Countries (by median total impressions, among larger segments):** - **Germany:** median **363,513** impressions (N=8) - **Netherlands:** median **297,908** impressions (N=9) - **US:** median **128,847** impressions (N=54) - **UK:** median **131,600** impressions (N=28) - **Industries (by median total impressions, among larger segments):** - **Financial Services:** median **491,350** impressions (N=6) - **Software Development:** median **289,352** impressions (N=64) ## **Overall (all companies)** ## **Executive summary (per company per month)** - **Typical monthly volume (whole dataset):** - **Impressions/mo:** **median 71,424** | **avg 247,979** - **Engagements/mo:** **median 873** | **avg 4,219** - **Clicks/mo:** **median 515** | **avg 2,126** - **The distribution is skewed (means are much higher than medians):** - 75% of companies are at **≤ 209,387 impressions/mo**, **≤ 3,878 engagements/mo**, **≤ 1,819 clicks/mo**. - Top 10% are at **≥ 589,141 impressions/mo**, **≥ 10,376 engagements/mo**, **≥ 5,498 clicks/mo**. - Max observed: **4,815,349 impressions/mo**, **58,020 engagements/mo**, **33,783 clicks/mo**. - **Company size drives monthly volume (median):** - **1k–5k employees:** **1,321,780 impressions/mo**, **18,658 engagements/mo**, **8,021 clicks/mo** (N=5) - **11–50 employees:** **53,424 impressions/mo**, **746 engagements/mo**, **354 clicks/mo** (N=67) - **Countries (median impressions/mo, among larger segments):** - **Netherlands:** **148,954** (N=9) - **Sweden:** **126,966** (N=5) - **Germany:** **101,322** (N=8) - **UK:** **89,752** (N=28) - **US:** **55,535** (N=54) - **Industries (median impressions/mo, among larger segments):** - **Financial Services:** **245,675** impressions/mo (N=6) — and the **avg is 1,095,980**, so this bucket contains very large outliers. - **Software Development:** **127,584** impressions/mo (N=64) ### **Overall totals – LinkedIn ABM impressions, engagements, clicks – per company** | **Metric** | **Average** | **Median** | **N** | | Impressions | 779,738 | 156,102 | 198 | | Engagements | 12,688 | 2,256 | 200 | | Clicks | 6,228 | 1,220 | 197 | ### **Overall per company per month –LinkedIn ABM impressions, engagements, clicks**  | **Metric** | **Average** | **Median** | **N** | | Impressions/mo | 246,727 | 70,663 | 198 | | Engagements/mo | 4,158 | 852 | 200 | | Clicks/mo | 2,126 | 515 | 197 | ## **By company size (employee brackets)** | **Company size bracket** | **N** | **Avg Impr/mo** | **Median Impr/mo** | **Avg Eng/mo** | **Median Eng/mo** | **Avg Clicks/mo** | **Median Clicks/mo** | | 1–10 | 27 | 136,928 | 29,681 | 2,372 | 530 | 871 | 239 | | 11–50 | 67 | 215,431 | 53,424 | 2,439 | 746 | 1,564 | 354 | | 51–200 | 60 | 218,503 | 130,081 | 4,269 | 1,334 | 2,252 | 614 | | 201–500 | 13 | 344,806 | 138,387 | 10,888 | 2,370 | 2,523 | 580 | | 501–1k | 2 | 65,698 | 65,698 | 1,649 | 1,649 | 270 | 270 | | 1k–5k | 5 | 1,473,543 | 1,321,780 | 21,425 | 18,658 | 14,421 | 8,021 | | 10k+ | 2 | 291,026 | 291,026 | 5,539 | 5,539 | 2,891 | 2,891 | | Unknown | 21 | 240,344 | 72,330 | 4,024 | 1,376 | 2,101 | 932 | ## **By employee number (quartiles in this dataset)** | **Employee quartile** | **N** | **Avg Impr/mo** | **Median Impr/mo** | **Avg Eng/mo** | **Median Eng/mo** | **Avg Clicks/mo** | **Median Clicks/mo** | | Q1 (≤19) | 45 | 114,576 | 46,387 | 2,056 | 443 | 1,087 | 239 | | Q2 (20–42) | 42 | 97,833 | 53,424 | 1,853 | 509 | 1,111 | 354 | | Q3 (43–105) | 47 | 198,986 | 97,951 | 3,189 | 921 | 1,363 | 900 | | Q4 (>105) | 42 | 420,273 | 142,452 | 8,665 | 1,792 | 3,839 | 663 | | Unknown | 21 | 240,344 | 72,330 | 4,024 | 1,376 | 2,101 | 932 | ## **By country** | **Country** | **N** | **Avg Impr/mo** | **Median Impr/mo** | **Avg Eng/mo** | **Median Eng/mo** | **Avg Clicks/mo** | **Median Clicks/mo** | | United States | 54 | 250,203 | 55,535 | 4,888 | 863 | 2,400 | 494 | | Unknown | 34 | 360,372 | 69,771 | 4,127 | 702 | 2,180 | 440 | | United Kingdom | 28 | 122,686 | 89,752 | 4,061 | 968 | 1,367 | 495 | | Poland | 9 | 89,453 | 46,008 | 1,638 | 921 | 725 | 900 | | Netherlands | 9 | 840,028 | 148,954 | 11,345 | 3,173 | 7,942 | 1,431 | | Germany | 8 | 124,869 | 101,322 | 4,385 | 1,023 | 1,673 | 710 | | Spain | 6 | 55,884 | 43,752 | 1,245 | 435 | 400 | 225 | | Sweden | 5 | 157,957 | 126,966 | 2,308 | 1,317 | 2,246 | 978 | | India | 4 | 24,896 | 9,940 | 1,786 | 703 | 502 | 222 | | Croatia | 4 | 37,644 | 39,046 | 750 | 566 | 260 | 225 | | France | 4 | 64,138 | 49,894 | 907 | 663 | 466 | 368 | | Australia | 3 | 109,706 | 90,637 | 757 | 737 | 503 | 513 | | Austria | 3 | 20,907 | 14,759 | 368 | 285 | 167 | 113 | | Canada | 3 | 133,469 | 78,416 | 1,219 | 1,086 | 566 | 579 | | Czech Republic | 2 | 72,168 | 72,168 | 1,536 | 1,536 | 742 | 742 | | Denmark | 2 | 1,965,199 | 1,965,199 | 27,839 | 27,839 | 15,173 | 15,173 | | Estonia | 2 | 80,900 | 80,900 | 553 | 553 | 725 | 725 | | Finland | 2 | 24,945 | 24,945 | 671 | 671 | 209 | 209 | | Hong Kong | 2 | 9,358 | 9,358 | 246 | 246 | 133 | 133 | | Lithuania | 2 | 20,662 | 20,662 | 240 | 240 | 227 | 227 | | Malta | 2 | 17,267 | 17,267 | 205 | 205 | 106 | 106 | | North Macedonia | 2 | 12,424 | 12,424 | 204 | 204 | 85 | 85 | | Norway | 2 | 62,142 | 62,142 | 642 | 642 | 721 | 721 | | Singapore | 2 | 43,806 | 43,806 | 1,166 | 1,166 | 315 | 315 | | Switzerland | 2 | 41,343 | 41,343 | 486 | 486 | 374 | 374 | | Turkey | 2 | 30,332 | 30,332 | 587 | 587 | 289 | 289 | | Belgium | 1 | 3,660 | 3,660 | 44 | 44 | 19 | 19 | | Brazil | 1 | 17,259 | 17,259 | 4,186 | 4,186 | 1,566 | 1,566 | | Pakistan | 1 | 14,831 | 14,831 | 2,873 | 2,873 | 1,382 | 1,382 | | United Arab Emirates | 1 | 2,066 | 2,066 | 452 | 452 | 156 | 156 | ## By industry | **Industry** | **N** | **Avg Impr/mo** | **Median Impr/mo** | **Avg Eng/mo** | **Median Eng/mo** | **Avg Clicks/mo** | **Median Clicks/mo** | | Software Development | 64 | 238,878 | 127,584 | 4,945 | 1,281 | 2,063 | 788 | | Unknown | 30 | 272,546 | 73,815 | 5,044 | 993 | 2,702 | 574 | | IT Services and IT Consulting | 16 | 77,253 | 35,872 | 1,793 | 216 | 896 | 184 | | Technology, Information and Internet | 15 | 109,501 | 66,442 | 2,386 | 746 | 992 | 500 | | Advertising Services | 15 | 119,762 | 30,670 | 3,461 | 752 | 1,512 | 381 | | Marketing Services | 9 | 144,390 | 46,387 | 6,149 | 700 | 2,922 | 663 | | Financial Services | 6 | 1,095,980 | 245,675 | 14,679 | 670 | 10,691 | 418 | | Information Technology and Services | 6 | 149,516 | 86,238 | 3,812 | 518 | 1,173 | 370 | | Computer and Network Security | 4 | 74,837 | 55,535 | 1,641 | 1,175 | 1,131 | 476 | | Computer Software | 4 | 106,826 | 59,245 | 2,003 | 1,066 | 1,512 | 787 | | Human Resources Services | 4 | 40,707 | 25,723 | 1,068 | 560 | 421 | 244 | | Management Consulting | 4 | 33,848 | 23,358 | 1,076 | 705 | 284 | 218 | | Public Relations and Communications | 3 | 75,548 | 55,535 | 1,403 | 1,175 | 516 | 476 | | Staffing and Recruiting | 3 | 45,997 | 37,813 | 1,190 | 893 | 330 | 350 | | Accounting | 2 | 65,698 | 65,698 | 1,649 | 1,649 | 270 | 270 | | Business Consulting and Services | 2 | 20,662 | 20,662 | 240 | 240 | 227 | 227 | | Computer Hardware Manufacturing | 2 | 24,945 | 24,945 | 671 | 671 | 209 | 209 | | Education Management | 2 | 80,900 | 80,900 | 553 | 553 | 725 | 725 | | E-Learning | 2 | 12,424 | 12,424 | 204 | 204 | 85 | 85 | | Government Administration | 2 | 62,142 | 62,142 | 642 | 642 | 721 | 721 | | Health, Wellness & Fitness | 2 | 41,343 | 41,343 | 486 | 486 | 374 | 374 | | Internet Publishing | 2 | 17,267 | 17,267 | 205 | 205 | 106 | 106 | | Outsourcing and Offshoring Consulting | 2 | 43,806 | 43,806 | 1,166 | 1,166 | 315 | 315 | | (other industries with N=1) | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | ## **Average CTR, Average CPC, Average CPM of LinkedIn ABM Ads** | **Metric** | **Average** | **Median** | **N** | | CTR (%) | 1.26 | 0.69 | 197 | | CPC | $10.70 | $5.53 | 197 | | CPM | $74.53 | $40.18 | 198 | **Quick read:** medians are **CTR 0.69%**, **CPC $5.53**, **CPM $40.18**; averages are higher (skew). ## **Executive summary (CTR, CPC, CPM)** - **Baseline benchmarks (whole dataset):** - **CTR:** median **0.69%**, average **1.26%** (N=197) - **CPC:** median **$5.53**, average **$10.70** (N=197) - **CPM:** median **$40.18**, average **$74.53** (N=198) - **Company size signal (bigger orgs don’t automatically have worse efficiency):** - **1k–5k employees (N=5)** shows the **highest average CTR** at **3.56%** (median **1.05%**) and **lowest CPC** at **$3.96** (median **$4.22**), with **median CPM $44.50**. - Core SMB/mid-market brackets sit closer to the dataset median: - **11–50 (N=67):** median **CTR 0.65%**, **CPC $5.12**, **CPM $41.40** - **51–200 (N=60):** median **CTR 0.78%**, **CPC $6.26**, **CPM $38.22** - **Employee quartiles (median CTR improves slightly in the largest quartile):** - **Q4 (>105 employees, N=43):** median **CTR 0.84%** vs **Q1 (≤19, N=45)** median **0.63%**. - **Median CPC** stays in a tight band (**$5.15–$6.26**) across Q1–Q4, while **median CPM** rises in Q4 (**$59.02**). - **Country patterns (based on larger segments):** - **US (N=55):** median **CTR 0.92%**, **CPC $5.81**, **CPM $57.79** (higher CPM than UK). - **UK (N=28):** median **CTR 0.68%**, **CPC $5.55**, **CPM $34.67** (lower CPM). - **Poland (N=9):** highest median CTR among the main segments at **1.71%**, with median **CPC $4.29** and **CPM $36.47**. - **Netherlands (N=9):** median **CTR 1.05%**, **CPC $5.63**, **CPM $45.20**. - Several countries are **N≤2** and should be treated as “examples”, not stable benchmarks. - **Industry patterns (where the dataset is actually thick enough to benchmark):** - **Software Development (N=65)** is the **best baseline**: median **CTR 0.74%**, **CPC $4.93**, **CPM $38.01**. - **Advertising Services (N=15)** has the **strongest CTR**: median **1.73%** (avg **1.84%**) with median **CPC $5.58** and **CPM $53.89**. - **IT Services & IT Consulting (N=16)** is **more expensive**: median **CPC $8.26** and median **CPM $59.02** (median CTR **0.84%**). - **Financial Services (N=6)** is the **highest-CPM** bucket: average **CPM $131.70** (median **$44.85**), while median CTR (**0.75%**) and median CPC (**$6.78**) are not extreme — meaning the *cost pressure shows up mainly in CPM*, and the average is pulled up by a subset of expensive accounts. ## **By company size (brackets)** | **Company size bracket** | **N** | **Avg CTR (%)** | **Median CTR (%)** | **Avg CPC** | **Median CPC** | **Avg CPM** | **Median CPM** | | 1–10 | 27 | 1.31 | 0.57 | $9.64 | $5.15 | $48.74 | $36.35 | | 11–50 | 67 | 1.24 | 0.65 | $9.30 | $5.12 | $62.11 | $41.40 | | 51–200 | 60 | 1.08 | 0.78 | $9.47 | $6.26 | $62.83 | $38.22 | | 201–500 | 13 | 0.82 | 0.56 | $9.12 | $6.36 | $50.52 | $36.47 | | 501–1k | 2 | 0.95 | 0.95 | $13.71 | $13.71 | $167.71 | $167.71 | | 1k–5k | 5 | 3.56 | 1.05 | $3.96 | $4.22 | $40.09 | $44.50 | | 10k+ | 2 | 0.82 | 0.82 | $15.16 | $15.16 | $116.19 | $116.19 | | Unknown | 21 | 1.54 | 0.92 | $21.90 | $5.02 | $185.70 | $54.96 | ## **By employee number (quartiles)** | **Employee quartile** | **N** | **Avg CTR (%)** | **Median CTR (%)** | **Avg CPC** | **Median CPC** | **Avg CPM** | **Median CPM** | | Q1 (≤19) | 45 | 1.23 | 0.63 | $10.51 | $5.70 | $71.46 | $39.08 | | Q2 (20–42) | 43 | 1.25 | 0.58 | $10.89 | $5.15 | $65.12 | $36.35 | | Q3 (43–105) | 46 | 1.08 | 0.78 | $8.55 | $6.26 | $51.65 | $38.22 | | Q4 (>105) | 43 | 1.26 | 0.84 | $10.20 | $5.83 | $84.60 | $59.02 | | Unknown | 21 | 1.54 | 0.92 | $21.90 | $5.02 | $185.70 | $54.96 | ## **By country** | **Country** | **N** | **Avg CTR (%)** | **Median CTR (%)** | **Avg CPC** | **Median CPC** | **Avg CPM** | **Median CPM** | | United States | 55 | 1.52 | 0.92 | $9.52 | $5.81 | $77.47 | $57.79 | | Unknown | 35 | 1.21 | 0.70 | $10.60 | $6.14 | $57.31 | $53.50 | | United Kingdom | 28 | 0.92 | 0.68 | $9.26 | $5.55 | $35.77 | $34.67 | | Poland | 9 | 2.15 | 1.71 | $6.65 | $4.29 | $44.88 | $36.47 | | Netherlands | 9 | 1.10 | 1.05 | $6.95 | $5.63 | $58.91 | $45.20 | | Germany | 8 | 1.09 | 1.25 | $7.94 | $6.67 | $61.04 | $22.71 | | Spain | 6 | 0.90 | 0.70 | $8.52 | $6.00 | $44.85 | $43.90 | | Sweden | 5 | 0.99 | 0.94 | $11.64 | $8.10 | $73.14 | $44.85 | | India | 4 | 1.66 | 0.93 | $4.77 | $3.60 | $40.18 | $25.46 | | Austria | 3 | 0.88 | 0.57 | $12.44 | $6.08 | $45.43 | $42.40 | | Canada | 3 | 1.08 | 0.59 | $13.02 | $6.42 | $55.05 | $40.18 | | France | 3 | 1.24 | 0.62 | $13.01 | $5.96 | $37.86 | $22.64 | | Finland | 2 | 2.24 | 2.24 | $5.84 | $5.84 | $50.26 | $50.26 | | Lithuania | 2 | 0.37 | 0.37 | $14.35 | $14.35 | $71.48 | $71.48 | | Norway | 2 | 0.96 | 0.96 | $8.24 | $8.24 | $32.90 | $32.90 | | Singapore | 2 | 0.80 | 0.80 | $11.06 | $11.06 | $44.08 | $44.08 | | Switzerland | 2 | 0.91 | 0.91 | $13.20 | $13.20 | $41.84 | $41.84 | | Turkey | 2 | 1.47 | 1.47 | $4.09 | $4.09 | $45.93 | $45.93 | | Croatia | 1 | 1.10 | 1.10 | $8.00 | $8.00 | $35.78 | $35.78 | | Denmark | 1 | 2.48 | 2.48 | $6.43 | $6.43 | $159.23 | $159.23 | | Malta | 1 | 1.70 | 1.70 | $14.17 | $14.17 | $240.62 | $240.62 | | North Macedonia | 1 | 3.18 | 3.18 | $10.31 | $10.31 | $330.11 | $330.11 | | United Arab Emirates | 1 | 2.50 | 2.50 | $5.78 | $5.78 | $144.85 | $144.85 | | (…other single-country rows) | | | | | | | | ## **By industry** | **Industry** | **N** | **Avg CTR (%)** | **Median CTR (%)** | **Avg CPC** | **Median CPC** | **Avg CPM** | **Median CPM** | | Software Development | 65 | 1.13 | 0.74 | $10.56 | $4.93 | $79.40 | $38.01 | | Unknown | 30 | 1.37 | 0.70 | $11.51 | $6.78 | $61.29 | $54.96 | | IT Services and IT Consulting | 16 | 1.01 | 0.84 | $14.37 | $8.26 | $100.32 | $59.02 | | Advertising Services | 15 | 1.84 | 1.73 | $7.90 | $5.58 | $71.55 | $53.89 | | Technology, Information and Internet | 15 | 1.40 | 0.87 | $13.16 | $8.73 | $76.56 | $50.63 | | Marketing Services | 9 | 0.98 | 0.69 | $10.74 | $5.73 | $38.11 | $40.18 | | Financial Services | 6 | 1.18 | 0.75 | $9.10 | $6.78 | $131.70 | $44.85 | | Information Technology and Services | 6 | 0.71 | 0.66 | $8.39 | $5.38 | $34.38 | $33.89 | | Telecommunications | 5 | 1.47 | 0.74 | $7.95 | $6.04 | $39.33 | $30.40 | | Computer and Network Security | 4 | 0.72 | 0.70 | $9.63 | $6.00 | $40.18 | $43.90 | | Computer Software | 3 | 1.09 | 0.62 | $13.01 | $5.96 | $37.86 | $22.64 | | Staffing and Recruiting | 3 | 1.66 | 0.93 | $4.77 | $3.60 | $40.18 | $25.46 | | (…industries with N=1) | | | | | | | | ## **LinkedIn ABM Performance & efficiency Benchmarks – TOTAL Influenced Pipeline,  Pipeline Per $ Spent, ROAS, Deal Open Rate (deals/companies targeted), ACV, Deals Won %**  ![Chart of LinkedIn ad formats showing single image ads at 59.3% of 2,828 analyzed ads, ahead of video at 15%](https://cdn.zenabm.com/media/LinkedIn-ad-performance-content-analysis-zenabm-1-1.png) ## **Executive summary (medians; segment tables sorted by Median Pipeline per $)** - **Overall medians:** **$95.6k influenced pipeline**, **6.89 pipeline per $**, **3.47 ROAS**, **0.20% deal open rate**, **$77.1k ACV**, **5.86% deals-won rate** (coverage varies by metric: pipeline N=33; ROAS/ACV N=21; won-rate N=15). - **Company size (median efficiency):** the top median **Pipeline per $** among brackets with meaningful coverage is **11–50 employees at 9.98 (N=9 pipeline)**, followed by **51–200 at 7.63 (N=14)**, then **1–10 at 4.42 (N=5)**. - The **highest median influenced pipeline** among size brackets is **1k–5k at $900k (N=3)**. - **Employee quartiles (median efficiency):** **Q3 (43–105)** has the highest median **Pipeline per $ = 9.98 (N=7)**; **Q4 (>105)** follows at **7.63 (N=19)**. - **Countries (medians in the largest segments):** - **US (N=7 pipeline):** median **Pipeline per $ 6.89**, median **pipeline $462.4k**, median **deal open rate 0.19%**. - **Unknown (N=9):** median **Pipeline per $ 6.39**, median **pipeline $95.6k**, median **deal open rate 0.38%**. - **UK (N=7):** median **Pipeline per $ 4.84**, median **pipeline $22.0k**, median **ROAS 18.02** (ROAS N=6). - **Industries (where N is biggest):** - **Unknown industry (N=10):** median **Pipeline per $ 7.85**, median **pipeline $207.8k**, median **ROAS 3.29**. - **Software Development (N=13):** median **Pipeline per $ 6.89**, median **pipeline $103.0k**, median **ROAS 11.68**, median **deals-won rate 14.71%** (won-rate N=4). ## **Overall influenced pipeline (median)** | **Metric** | **Median** | | Influenced pipeline ($) | $95,600 | | Pipeline per $ | 6.89 | | ROAS | 3.47 | | Deal open rate | 0.20% | | ACV ($) | $77,097 | | Deals won rate | 5.86% | ## **By company size (smallest → largest)** | **Company size bracket** | **Median influenced pipeline ($)** | **Median pipeline per $** | **Median ROAS** | **Median deal open rate** | **Median ACV ($)** | **Median deals won rate** | | 1–10 | $38,400 | 4.42 | 0.67 | 0.29% | $37,740 | 13.64% | | 11–50 | $60,000 | 9.98 | 1.49 | 0.22% | $68,000 | 2.95% | | 51–200 | $277,500 | 7.63 | 7.19 | 0.20% | $270,324 | 5.86% | | 201–500 | $668,831 | 25.39 | | 1.35% | | | | 501–1k | | | | | | | | 1k–5k | | | | | | | | 5k–10k | | | | | | | | 10k+ | | | | | | | | Unknown | $70,665 | 3.29 | 1.65 | 0.18% | $69,800 | 5.88% | ## **By country**  | **Country** | **Median influenced pipeline ($)** | **Median pipeline per $** | **Median ROAS** | **Median deal open rate** | **Median ACV ($)** | **Median deals won rate** | | United States | $462,400 | 6.89 | 1.47 | 0.19% | $62,400 | 4.59% | | Unknown | $95,600 | 6.39 | 1.65 | 0.38% | $77,097 | 2.78% | | United Kingdom | $22,000 | 4.84 | 18.02 | 0.35% | $72,905 | 13.64% | By employee number (quartiles) | **Employee quartile** | **Median influenced pipeline ($)** | **Median pipeline per $** | **Median ROAS** | **Median deal open rate** | **Median ACV ($)** | **Median deals won rate** | | Q1 (≤19) | $38,400 | 9.30 | 0.67 | 0.15% | $37,740 | 13.64% | | Q2 (20–42) | $103,000 | 6.39 | 1.49 | 0.30% | $68,000 | 2.95% | | Q3 (43–105) | $142,500 | 5.87 | 5.33 | 0.19% | $174,067 | 5.86% | | Q4 (>105) | $668,831 | 25.39 | 11.87 | 0.79% | $342,552 | | | Unknown | $70,665 | 3.29 | 1.65 | 0.18% | $69,800 | 5.88% | ## **By industry (only industries with ≥3 companies with usable Pipeline/$ data)** | **Industry** | **Median influenced pipeline ($)** | **Median pipeline per $** | **Median ROAS** | **Median deal open rate** | **Median ACV ($)** | **Median deals won rate** | | Unknown | $207,800 | 7.85 | 3.29 | 0.39% | $125,738 | 3.05% | | Software Development | $103,000 | 6.89 | 11.68 | 0.35% | $72,905 | 14.71% | ## **Dataset-wide median efficiency** is **6.89 pipeline per $**, with a **$95.6k** median influenced pipeline and **3.47** median ROAS. ## **Efficiency by company size** rises notably through mid-market: **11–50** has **9.98** median pipeline/$; **51–200** has **7.63**; **201–500** is **25.39** (where available). ## **Among the only countries with >3 companies worth benchmarking on Pipeline/$**, the **US** shows the highest median **pipeline volume** (**$462.4k**) while **UK** shows the highest **median ROAS** (**18.02**). ## **Deal Open Rate:**  The deal open rate (in other words, the % of total companies targeted that the companies were able to open pipeline from = that reached the “Selecting” funnel stage)  is calculated by dividing the number of deals opened ÷ TOTAL number of companies targeted. Overall (companies with usable deal open rate): 49  **Mean deal open rate (overall): 0.53%** ## Mean deal open rate by country | Country | Companies | Mean deal open rate | | United States | 13 | 0.48% | | United Kingdom | 9 | 0.39% | | Germany | 3 | 0.32% | | Netherlands | 2 | 0.53% | | Brazil | 1 | 1.35% | | France | 1 | 0.93% | | Switzerland | 1 | 0.81% | | Lithuania | 1 | 0.79% | | Czech Republic | 1 | 0.25% | | Australia | 1 | 0.20% | | Sweden | 1 | 0.18% | | Croatia | 1 | 0.14% | | Spain | 1 | 0.03% | | Norway | 1 | 0.02% | Light interpretation: US and UK dominate the usable sample (22/49), with mean deal-open rates around 0.4–0.5%. ## **Mean deal open rate by company size bracket** | Company size bracket | | Mean deal open rate | | 1–10 | | 0.44% | | 11–50 | | 0.36% | | 51–200 | | 0.50% | | 201–500 | | 1.35% | | Unknown | | 0.98% | Light interpretation: within brackets with real volume, 51–200 is the highest mean (0.50%) vs 11–50 (0.36%). Mean deal open rate by employee count (quartiles) | Employee count quartile | | Mean deal open rate | | Q1 (≤21) | | 0.45% | | Q2 (22–38) | | 0.32% | | Q3 (39–76) | | 0.31% | | Q4 (77+) | | 0.72% | | Unknown | | 0.98% | Light interpretation: the top employee quartile (77+) shows a higher mean (0.72%) than the other known quartiles (\~0.31–0.45%). ## Top performers vs the rest (mean deal open rate) ## Top performers definition used: Top decile by ROAS OR top decile by Pipeline per $ (union). | Segment | | Mean deal open rate | | Top performers (Top decile by ROAS OR Pipeline/$) | | 0.72% | | Rest of dataset | | 0.51% | | Top decile by ROAS (only) | | 0.75% | | Top decile by Pipeline/$ (only) | | 0.70% | Light interpretation: top performers have a higher mean deal-open rate **(0.72%) than the rest (0.51%) in the rows where deal-open-rate is available.** ## ## **LinkedIn ABM Campaign Top Performers:** This section looks at the “Habits of the top-performing [LinkedIn ABM](/blog/linkedin-ad-engagement-analytics-zenabm) companies” – “top performing” as defined by:  - **Annualised pipeline generated** (average monthly pipeline x 12 months)  - **Pipeline per $ spent** (campaign efficiency)  - **ROAS** (return on ad spent) To make the results more representative, we removed outliers from the dataset – companies that fell two standard deviations (SDs) above or below the mean. This resulted in 32 companies with adspend and pipeline per $ spent data available.  We analysed the “Top Performers” in terms of:  | - influenced pipeline per month ($/mo) | | - annualized influenced pipeline ($/yr) | | - pipeline per $ | | - monthly ad spend ($/mo) | | - impressions per month | | - engagements per month | | - clicks per month | | - Median CTR (%) | | - Median CPC ($) | | - Median CPM ($) | | - # number of LinkedIn ads | | - # number of Campaign Groups | | - number of  # LinkedIn Campaigns (ad sets) | | - Median number of companies targeted (total) | | - Median **deal open rate (deals/ companies targeted)** | | - Median ROAS | | - Median influence threshold | | - Median intents tracked | | - Median employees | | - Top Countries | | - Top Industries | ## **1) Top performers by annualized LinkedIn ABM pipeline generated** | **Metric** | **Median** | | | | | Median influenced pipeline per month ($/mo) | $195,600 | | Median annualized influenced pipeline ($/yr) | $2,347,200 | | Median pipeline per $ | 12.41 | | Median monthly spend ($/mo) | $30,092 | | Median impressions per month | 204,892 | | Median engagements per month | 9,687 | | Median clicks per month | 1,568 | | Median CTR (%) | 0.57% | | Median CPC ($) | $27.31 | | Median CPM ($) | $130.20 | | Median # LinkedIn ads | 332 | | Median # Campaign Groups | 18 | | Median # LinkedIn Campaigns (ad sets) | 52 | | Median companies targeted (total) | 10,326 | | Median deal open rate | 0.28% | | Median ROAS | 2.76 | | Median influence threshold | 10 | | Median intents tracked | 4 | | Median employees | 94 | | Top Countries | United States, | | Top Industries | Technology, Information and Internet | **Light interpretation (data-only):** this group runs **much higher monthly budgets** and **larger ad libraries**, and produces the **highest pipeline volume** (even though CTR is not especially high). ## **2) Top performers by Pipeline per $ spent** | **Metric** | **Median** | | | | | Median influenced pipeline per month ($/mo) | $106,500 | | Median annualized influenced pipeline ($/yr) | $1,278,000 | | Median pipeline per $ | 15.20 | | Median monthly spend ($/mo) | $6,576 | | Median impressions per month | 319,742 | | Median engagements per month | 684 | | Median clicks per month | 481 | | Median CTR (%) | 0.21% | | Median CPC ($) | $21.91 | | Median CPM ($) | $56.62 | | Median # LinkedIn ads | 114 | | Median # Campaign Groups | 10 | | Median # LinkedIn Campaigns (ad sets) | 20 | | Median companies targeted (total) | 9,071 | | Median deal open rate | 0.66% | | Median ROAS | 2.79 | | Median influence threshold | 10 | | Median intents tracked | 2 | | Median employees | 103 | | Top Countries: | France | | Top Industries: | Software Development | This group achieves **higher efficiency (Pipeline/$)** with **lower monthly spend** and a **smaller ad library**; their median **deal open rate is higher** than the “pipeline volume leaders” segment. ## **3. Top performers by LinkedIn ABM ROAS**  Median influenced pipeline per month ($/mo): $7,200 Median annualized influenced pipeline ($/yr): $86,400 Median pipeline per $: 6.11 Median monthly spend ($/mo): $1,179 Median impressions per month: 23,877 Median engagements per month: 567 Median clicks per month: 190 Median CTR (%): 0.91% Median CPC ($): $9.87 Median CPM ($): $49.39 Median # LinkedIn ads: 49 Median # Campaign Groups: 14 Median # LinkedIn Campaigns (ad sets): 20 Median companies targeted (total): 5,135 Median deal open rate (deals / companies targeted): 0.66% Median ROAS: 17.85 Median influence threshold: 10 Median intents tracked: — (not populated for these top-ROAS rows) Median employees: 18 Top Countries: United Kingdom Top Industries: Software Development - **ROAS threshold (75th percentile): 13.09** - **Top performers by ROAS: 2 companies** ### **Median profile — Top ROAS performers** | **Metric** | **Median** | | | | | ROAS | 3.29 | | Pipeline per $ spent | 5.47 | | Pipeline per month | $32,475 | | Annualized pipeline | $389,700 | ### **Light interpretation (data-only)** - **Pipeline/$ median (4.85)** is **not higher** than in the highest ROAS group – which indicated ROAS  ## **LinkedIn ABM Correlations:**  In this part of the report, we’re looking at the **correlations between [ABM campaign performance](/blog/track-the-roi-of-linkedin-ads) (as expressed by average monthly pipeline influenced, and pipeline per dollar spent (= efficiency) and:**  - Monthly [ABM Ad](/blog/best-abm-tactics) Spend  - Number of [ABM Companies targeted](/blog/6sense-for-abm) – in total  - Number of [ABM Companies targeted](/blog/rollworks-for-abm) – in per month  - Number of [LinkedIn Campaign Groups and Campaigns run ](/blog/linkedin-ad-to-crm-automation-tools)  - Number of ads run - Median CTR - Median CPC  - Median CPM Spend & efficiency:  - CPM by ad **spend tier** Below = **same analysis, but excluding “ACV outliers”** defined as: **ACV > 1.3 × dataset median ACV**. - Dataset median ACV (where present) = **$77,097** - Outlier cutoff = **$100,226** - Removed **9 companies** (only those with ACV present and above the cutoff) Correlations – how different metrics correlate with Pipeline Generated and Pipeline per $ spent Below are the **correlations** between ABM performance and execution variables, plus **CPM by ad spend tier**. **Performance metrics used** - **Influenced pipeline per month ($/mo)** = TOTAL LinkedIn influenced pipeline / active months - **Pipeline per $ (efficiency)** = Pipeline per $ **Important:** These correlations are computed on the subset of companies where the performance metric is populated (**N = 33** for most pairs; **N = 30** where “# LinkedIn ads” is missing). ## **Correlations vs Influenced pipeline per month ($/mo)** (Reported as **Spearman rho** + **Pearson r**) | **Driver** | **N** | **Spearman rho** | **Pearson r** | | Monthly ad spend ($/mo) | 33 | 0.47 | 0.57 | | LinkedIn Campaigns (ad sets) | 33 | 0.39 | 0.21 | | Companies targeted (total) | 33 | 0.37 | 0.13 | | Companies targeted (avg/mo) | 33 | 0.35 | 0.27 | | LinkedIn ads (count) | 30 | 0.31 | 0.06 | | CPC ($) | 33 | 0.29 | -0.02 | | LinkedIn Campaign Groups | 33 | 0.22 | 0.09 | | CTR (%) | 33 | -0.14 | 0.05 | | CPM ($) | 33 | 0.05 | 0.21 | **Interpretation:** in this view, **pipeline volume scales most with monthly spend** (moderate positive correlation). Variables like **campaigns/ad sets** and **targeting volume** show **weak-to-moderate positive** relationships with monthly pipeline volume, but notably smaller than spend. ## **Correlations vs Pipeline per $ (efficiency)** | **Driver** | **N** | **Spearman rho** | **Pearson r** | | Monthly ad spend ($/mo) | 33 | -0.13 | -0.12 | | LinkedIn Campaigns (ad sets) | 33 | -0.10 | -0.14 | | CPC ($) | 33 | 0.09 | -0.10 | | Companies targeted (total) | 33 | -0.07 | -0.14 | | Companies targeted (avg/mo) | 33 | 0.07 | -0.13 | | CTR (%) | 33 | -0.07 | 0.08 | | CPM ($) | 33 | -0.07 | -0.08 | | LinkedIn ads (count) | 30 | -0.05 | -0.08 | | LinkedIn Campaign Groups | 33 | -0.02 | -0.16 | **Interpretation:** efficiency (**Pipeline/$**) has **near-zero relationships** with spend, targeting volume, campaign counts, ads count, CTR/CPC/CPM in this subset. The (slightly) negative signs for spend/targeting (more spend and more companies targeted = lower efficiency) are present, but very weak.  **PART 2: [LinkedIn ABM Ad](/blog/abm-campaign-template) Content Analysis**  This part of the report is based on quantitative and qualitative analysis **2,828 ads run in 2025 by 7 [B2B SaaS companies.](/blog/best-linkedin-ads-agencies)** This part of the report covers selected ad formats that were represented in the data set: Singe image ads (1676), video ads (423), carousel ads (310), and TLAs (215).  ### **LinkedIn ABM Ad performance by inventory type – key metrics (CTR/ CTR to landing page, CPC, CPM, Dwell time)** | **Inventory type** | **CTR (median)** | **CTR to landing page (median)** | **CPC to landing page (median)** | **CPC (median)** | **CPM (median)** | **Dwell time (median)** | | Image ads (non-TLA) | 0.42% | 0.42% | — | $13.23 | $59.15 | 3.64s | | Video ads | 0.24% | 0.24% | — | $15.61 | $38.94 | 3.91s | | Carousel ads | 0.32% | 0.31% | — | $13.30 | $45.28 | 4.56s | | Document ads | 0.30% | 0.00% | — | $12.05 | $72.02 | 3.15s | | **TLAs (Thought Leader Ads)** | 2.68% | 0.29% | **$18.09** | $2.29 | $49.37 | 6.63s | | [Lead Gen Form](/blog/linkedin-ads-hubspot-integration-steps) ads (objective) | 0.45% | 0.00% | — | $12.33 | $75.59 | 3.18s | ## **LinkedIn ABM Ads –  split by inventory type:** ![Chart of LinkedIn ad formats showing single image ads at 59.3% of 2,828 analyzed ads, ahead of video at 15%](https://cdn.zenabm.com/media/LinkedIn-ad-performance-content-analysis-zenabm-1-1.png) | **Ad inventory type** | **# Ads** | **% of ads** | | **Single image** | 1,676 | 59.3% | | **Video** | 423 | 15.0% | | **Carousel** | 310 | 11.0% | | **TLA** *(single image with blank “DSC Name”)* | 215 | 7.6% | | **Text** | 115 | 4.1% | | **DM** *(Sponsored Messaging)* | 67 | 2.4% | | **Dynamic** | 13 | 0.5% | | **Document** | 9 | 0.3% | | **Total** | **2,828** | **100.0%** | ## **LinkedIn ABM Ad Spend by inventory type:** **Global Spend (USD + Converted EUR) Total Spend: $611,365.30** - Image Ads (inlcuding TLAs): $378,230.22 (61.87%) - Video Ads: $193,915.51 (31.72%) - Document Ads: $17,910.93 (2.93%) - Carousel Ads: $16,703.14 (2.73%) - Other / Unclassified: $4,605.50 (0.75%) ## **LinkedIn Single Image ads benchmarks:** ![ZenABM table of LinkedIn single image ad benchmarks with median CTR 0.42%, CPC $13.23 and CPM $59.15](https://cdn.zenabm.com/media/ZenABM-linkedin-single-image-ads-performance.png) | **Dataset (after excluding TLAs)** | **Rows (ads)** | **CTR (avg)** | **CTR (median)** | **CPC (avg)** | **CPC (median)** | **CPM (avg)** | **CPM (median)** | **Dwell time (avg)** | **Dwell time (median)** | | **All non-TLA rows** | 936 | **0.48%** | **0.42%** | **$16.34** | **$13.23** | **$72.94** | **$59.15** | **4.19s** | **3.64s** | ##  **Linkedin Video ads benchmarks:**  ![ZenABM table of LinkedIn video ads benchmarks: 342 ads, 0.37% average CTR and 0.24% median CTR](https://cdn.zenabm.com/media/ZenABM-linkedin-video-ads-performance.png) | **Dataset** | **# video ads** | **CTR (avg)** | **CTR (median)** | **CPC (avg)** | **CPC (median)** | **CPM (avg)** | **CPM (median)** | **View-through rate (avg)** | **View-through rate (median)** | **Watch time (avg)** | **Watch time (median)** | | **All video ads (non-TLA)** | **342** | **0.366%** | **0.242%** | **$20.66** | **$15.61** | **$48.87** | **$38.94** | **37.921%** | **39.478%** | **6.54s** | **5.86s** | ## **LinkedIn Thought Leader Ad Benchmarks:**  ![ZenABM benchmark table for LinkedIn Thought Leader Ads showing 119 TLAs with a 3.40% average CTR](https://cdn.zenabm.com/media/ZenABM-thought-leader-ads-performance-benchmarks.png) | **Dataset** | **# TLAs** | **CTR (avg)** | **CTR (median)** | **CTR to landing page (avg)** | **CTR to landing page (median)** | **Clicks to landing page (avg)** | **Clicks to landing page (median)** | **Dwell time (avg)** | **Dwell time (median)** | **CPC (avg)** | **CPC (median)** | **CPM (avg)** | **CPM (median)** | | **TLAs (Image Ads only)** | 119 | 3.404% | 2.678% | **0.428%** | **0.290%** | 55.25 | 8 | 7.06s | 6.60s | $4.24 | $2.29 | $116.74 | **$49.37** | ## ## **LinkedIn ABM Carousel ads benchmarks (overall)** ![LinkedIn Carousel Ads benchmarks table from ZenABM showing a 0.32% median CTR and $13.31 median CPC](https://cdn.zenabm.com/media/ZenABM-Carousel-ads-performance-benchmarks.png) (Uses the **ad-level rows** in the carousel exports; card rows handled separately below.) | **Metric** | **Average** | **Median** | **Notes** | | **# Carousel ads** | **44** | — | combined across all carousel files | | **CTR** | **0.370%** | **0.323%** | Impressions > 0 | | **CPC** | **$19.60** | **$13.31** | Clicks > 0 | | **CPM** | **$58.02** | **$45.29** | Impressions > 0 | | **Dwell time** | **4.72s** | **4.56s** | Dwell > 0 | ### **Carousel card-level performance (overall)** (Weighted CTR = **total card clicks / total card impressions** per card position.) | **Card #** | **Card impressions share** | **Card clicks share** | **Card CTR (weighted)** | **Card CTR (median per-ad)** | | **1** | **76.32%** | **55.95%** | **0.117%** | **0.102%** | | **2** | **22.75%** | **38.83%** | **0.274%** | **0.256%** | | **3** | 0.43% | 1.62% | 0.597% | 0.000% | | **4** | 0.29% | 1.62% | 0.905% | 0.000% | | **5** | 0.13% | 0.90% | 1.121% | 0.000% | | **6** | 0.05% | 0.63% | 1.837% | 0.000% | | **7** | 0.02% | 0.45% | 2.890% | 0.000% | ##  **LinkedIn ABM Document Ads benchmarks** ![ZenABM table of LinkedIn Lead Gen Form ad benchmarks showing CTR, CPC, CPM and CPL for 2026 performance](https://cdn.zenabm.com/media/ZenABM-Document-ads-performance-benchmarks-2.png) **Since there were only 9 Document Ads in the data set, the document ad benchmarks (overall) are *directional* only:** | **Metric** | **Average** | **Median** | **Notes** | | **# Document ads** | **34** | **—** | **combined across document files** | | **CTR** | **1.577%** | **0.423%** | **Impressions > 0 (skewed by a few strong ads)** | | **CTR to landing page *(LP clicks / impressions)*** | **0.078%** | **0.000%** | **many rows have 0 LP clicks** | | **CPC** | **$39.95** | **$11.06** | **Clicks > 0 (big outliers inflate mean)** | | **CPM** | **$130.91** | **$60.95** | **Impressions > 0** | | **Dwell time** | **3.54s** | **3.13s** | **Dwell > 0** | **Top Performing Ads  – Quantitative LinkedIn Ad Analysis:** Top Performing Ad formats – LinkedIn Performance & Engagement:  - Single image ads  - Video ads  - Thought Leader Ads  - Carousel Ads - Document Ads  - Text Ads  - [Lead Gen Form](/blog/crm-integrations-linkedin-ad-tracking) ads - **Conversation Ads** **1 Format mix benchmarks (share of spend / share of impressions)** Report: - % spend by format (table) - % impressions by format - % clicks by format 2) Performance & Engagement per Ad format Impressions, Engagements, Clicks, CTR (= Clicks to Landing Page), CPM & Dwell Time by ad format  - Impressions  - Engagements - Clicks - CTR  - CPM - Dwell Time **Lead Gen Form ads Benchmarks** **Lead Gen Form ads — overall performance (avg + median)** | **Segment** | **# ads** | **CTR (avg)** | **CTR (median)** | **CPC (avg)** | **CPC (median)** | **CPM (avg)** | **CPM (median)** | **CTR (weighted)** | **CPC (weighted)** | **CPM (weighted)** | | **Lead Gen Form ads** | **163** | **0.445%** | **0.447%** | **$21.59** | **$12.33** | **$102.57** | **$75.59** | **0.594%** | **$12.15** | **$72.16** | **Lead-form specific benchmarks** | **Segment** | **Lead Forms Opened (total)** | **Leads (total)** | **Completion rate (avg)** | **Completion rate (median)** | **Completion rate (weighted)** | **Dwell time (avg)** | **Dwell time (median)** | **CPL (median, ads w/ ≥1 lead)** | **CPL (weighted)** | | **Lead Gen Form ads** | **2,128** | **48** | **1.237%** | **0.000%** | **2.256%** | **3.38s** | **3.17s** | **$430.76** | **$811.09** | ## **Top Performing LinkedIn ABM Ads – Qualitative Analysis** ![Example winning single image ad ZenABM](https://cdn.zenabm.com/media/Example-winning-single-image-ad.png) Analysis of 2,828 LinkedIn Ads | December 2025 ## Executive Summary This report analyzes quantitative performance data from 2,828 B2B SaaS [LinkedIn ads](/blog/how-to-analyze-linkedin-ads-with-claude-code) across 6 major formats, combined with qualitative visual analysis of 463+ top-performing ads. Key Finding: Thought Leader Ads (TLAs) deliver the most cost-effective landing page traffic at $3.06 per click (77% cheaper than single image ads), while video ads significantly underperform despite receiving 31.72% of total budget allocation. Strategic Opportunity: Reallocating budget from video to TLAs and applying proven creative patterns to image ads can yield 2-3× more landing page traffic for the same spend. ## Format Performance Overview ### Comprehensive Performance Table | **Format** | **% of Budget** | **% of Ads** | **Median CTR** | **Median CTR to LP** | **Median CPC** | **Weighted CPC to LP** | **Median CPM** | **Median Dwell Time** | **Efficiency Score\*** | | **TLAs** | **\~7-10%** | **7.6%** | **2.68%** | **0.29%** | **$2.29** | **$3.06** | **$49.37** | **6.63s** | **9.5** | | **Single Image** | **61.87%** | **59.3%** | **0.42%** | **0.42%** | **$13.23** | **$13.23** | **$59.15** | **3.64s** | **3.2** | | **Lead Gen Form** | **\~2%** | **5.8%** | **0.45%** | **0.00%** | **$12.33** | **$811.09/lead** | **$75.59** | **3.18s** | **3.7 (CTR only)** | | **Carousel** | **2.73%** | **11.0%** | **0.32%** | **0.31%** | **$13.30** | **$13.30** | **$45.28** | **4.56s** | **2.4** | | **Document** | **2.93%** | **0.3%** | **0.30%** | **0.00%** | **$12.05** | **N/A** | **$72.02** | **3.15s** | **2.5** | | **Video** | **31.72%** | **15.0%** | **0.24%** | **0.24%** | **$15.61** | **$15.61** | **$38.94** | **3.91s** | **1.5** | ## Comprehensive Format Analysis ### **1. Thought Leader Ads (TLAs) – The Performance Leader** ![LinkedIn Thought Leader Ad benchmarks table from 119 TLAs showing median CTR of 2.68% and median CPC of $2.29](https://cdn.zenabm.com/media/LinkedIn-Thought-leader-Ads-Benchmarks-ZenABM.png) Performance Metrics: - Overall CTR: 2.68% (median) | 3.40% (average) - CTR to Landing Page: 0.29% (median) | 0.43% (average) - CPC (all clicks): $0.48 (weighted) | $2.29 (median) - CPC to Landing Page: $3.06 (weighted) - CPM: $49.37 (median) | $116.74 (average) - Dwell Time: 6.63s (median) — 82% higher than image ads - Sample size: 119 TLAs The TLA Economics: | Metric | Value | Insight | | Total Clicks | 41,950 | High engagement | | Clicks to Landing Page | 6,575 | Only 15.7% of clicks go to LP | | [Landing Page Click Share](/blog/clay-for-abm-experts-share-it-all) | 15.7% | 84.3% = post engagement (likes, comments, shares, profile views) | | Cost per LP Click | $3.06 | 77% cheaper than image ads | What You’re Buying with TLAs: - 84.3% of clicks = engagement with the post (likes, comments, shares, “see more”, profile views) - 15.7% of clicks = actual landing page visits - Bonus: High social proof (visible engagement signals credibility) ROI Comparison ($1,000 budget): | Format | Impressions | LP Clicks | Cost per LP Click | Efficiency | | TLAs | 20,254 | 327 | $3.06 | Baseline | | Single Image | 16,902 | 76 | $13.23 | -77% fewer LP clicks | The TLA Advantage: - Same $1,000 budget yields 4.3× more landing page clicks - Plus: \~1,750 engagement clicks for social proof - Plus: 20% more reach (lower CPM) Strategic Use Cases: ✅ Best for: - Maximum landing page traffic on limited budget - Building personal/company authority while driving conversions - Social proof generation (visible engagement + LP traffic) - Top + mid-funnel combo campaigns ✅ Optimization Opportunity: - Current median CTR to LP: 0.29% - Applying winner formula (specific offers, real people, strong CTAs) - Target: 0.5-0.8% CTR to LP - Expected: +72-176% more LP clicks at same cost When TLAs Work Best: - Founder/expert has credible LinkedIn presence - [Content marketing + performance hybrid strategy](/blog/abm-strategy-types) - Budget efficiency is priority (low-cost LP traffic) - Building brand authority while driving conversions ### **2. Single Image Ads**  Performance Metrics: - CTR: 0.42% (median) | 0.48% (average) - CPC: $13.23 (median) | $16.34 (average) - CPM: $59.15 (median) | $72.94 (average) - Dwell Time: 3.64s (median) | 4.19s (average) - Sample size: 936 non-TLA single image ads Performance Distribution: - Above median (≥0.42% CTR): 463 ads (49.5%) - Top performers (≥2.00% CTR): 14 ads (1.5%) - Top 1.5% achieve 5× median CTR CTR Bracket Breakdown: | **CTR Bracket** | **# Ads** | **% of Total** | **CTR Range** | | Extremely High | 14 | 1.5% | ≥2.00% | | Very High | 35 | 3.7% | 1.10-2.00% | | High | 40 | 4.3% | 0.81-1.00% | | Mid | 173 | 18.5% | 0.55-0.80% | | Low | 201 | 21.5% | 0.42-0.55% | | Below Median | 473 | 50.5% | <0.42% | Visual Pattern Analysis (Top vs Bottom Performers): | **Element** | **Top Performers (≥2.00% CTR)** | **Bottom Performers ($50K ACV), events, newsletters - For all other use cases: Landing page conversion = 67-96% lower CPL ### 6. Document Ads – Insufficient Data Performance Metrics (Directional — Only 9 ads): - CTR: 0.42% (median) | 1.58% (average — skewed by outliers) - CTR to Landing Page: 0.00% (median) - CPC: $11.06 (median) | $39.95 (average — big outliers) - CPM: $60.95 (median) | $130.91 (average) - Dwell Time: 3.13s (median) Sample size too small for reliable benchmarks. Theoretical Use Cases: - Long-form content distribution (whitepapers, reports, guides) - When PDF download is the conversion goal (not LP visit) - Educational/thought leadership campaigns Not recommended due to lack of performance data in this dataset. ## LinkedIn ABM Ads Visual Pattern Analysis: The Winner Formula ### Top Elements in High-Performing Ads (≥2.00% CTR) | Visual Element | % in Top Performers | % in Low Performers | Impact | | 1. Specific Offer (FREE, $, time limit) | 65% | 10% | +550% more likely | | 2. Strong CTA Button (visible, action-oriented) | 59% | 20% | +195% more likely | | 3. Real People (authentic, not stock) | 47% | 30% (stock photos) | Authenticity critical | | 4. Charts/Diagrams (strategic, not UI dumps) | 41% | 40% (poorly used) | Context matters | | 5. Humor/Meme (pattern interrupt) | 35% | 2% | +1,650% more likely | | 6. Testimonial/Quote (with credentials) | 29% | 20% | Moderate lift | | 7. Minimalist Design (focused, not empty) | 18% | 45% (unfocused) | Quality over quantity | ### Anti-Patterns in Low-Performing Ads ( dense UI screenshots - Data visualization with context - Before/after comparisons - Guide the eye with annotations Avoid at All Costs: - ❌ Logo as hero image (25% in low performers vs 6% in top) - ❌ Stock photography (35% in low performers vs 12% in top) - ❌ Text-heavy layouts (40% in low performers vs 12% in top) - ❌ Generic “Learn More” CTAs (80% in low performers) ## Strategic Budget Allocation Recommendations ### Recommended Allocation #### Scenario A: Aggressive Performance Optimization | Format | Current % | Recommended % | Rationale | | TLAs | \~7-10% | 40-50% | 4.3× more efficient LP traffic ($3.06 vs $13.23 CPC) | | Single Image (Optimized) | 61.87% | 30-35% | Apply winner formula to top 20% of creatives | | Carousel | 2.73% | 12-15% | Leverage card-level engagement (Cards 3-7 = 5-25× CTR) | | Video | 31.72% | 5-8% | Retargeting warm audiences only | | Lead Gen | \~2% | 0-3% | High-ticket (>$50K ACV) only | Expected Results (90 days): - Overall CTR to LP: 0.35% → 0.7-1.0% (+100-186%) - Average CPC to LP: $11.50 → $6-8 (-30-48%) - Landing Page Traffic: +120-180% - Cost per LP Visit: -35-50% #### Scenario B: Balanced Growth (Lower Risk) | Format | Current % | Recommended % | Rationale | | TLAs | \~7-10% | 25-30% | Proven efficiency, scale gradually | | Single Image (Optimized) | 61.87% | 45-50% | Improve creative incrementally | | Carousel | 2.73% | 8-10% | Test optimized sequences | | Video | 31.72% | 12-15% | Reduce but maintain for brand awareness | | Lead Gen | \~2% | 2-3% | Maintain for appropriate use cases | Expected Results (90 days): - Overall CTR to LP: 0.35% → 0.5-0.65% (+43-86%) - Average CPC to LP: $11.50 → $8-10 (-13-30%) - Landing Page Traffic: +50-90% - Cost per LP Visit: -20-35% ## Single image ads ### In this section, we analysed Top performing single image ads by CTR. I defined “top performing” as having CTRs > the median benchmark for single image ads (0.42%). Out of the **936 single image ads,** **463 ads were above the median benchmark.**  I then grouped into **5 CTR brackets:** 1. low\_above\_median (0.42%–<0.55%) — **201** 2. mid\_above\_median (0.55%–0.80%) — **173** 3. high\_above\_median (0.81%–1.00%) — **40** 4. very\_high\_above\_median (1.10%–<2.00%) — **35** 5. extremely\_high\_above\_median (2.00%+) — **14** Here’s a qualitative analysis of the top performing image ads (with CTRs higher than the median CTR for single image ads in the data set = **0.42%):** ## Single Image Ads – Key Findings Summary ### 📊 Comparison Table | **Visual Element** | **Extremely High (≥2.00%)** | **Very High (1.10-2.00%)** | **High (0.81-1.00%)** | **Mid (0.55-0.80%)** | **Low (0.42-0.55%)** | **LOW (2,000 chars (loses reader) #### 8. Social Proof: Specific Metrics (45%) - “$650,000 in pipeline in 90 days” - “$12 in pipeline per $ spent” - “50% faster consolidation” - “€1 million in revenue in 10 days” #### 9. Formatting: 100% Use Line Breaks - Short paragraphs (1-2 sentences max) - Line breaks every 2-3 lines - Minimal emojis (35% use 1-3: 👍, 👇, 👉) - ✅ checkmarks for benefit lists - NO hashtag spam #### 10. Structure: Problem-Solution Framework Winning Arc: 1. Hook (50-100 chars): Relatable pain 2. Backstory (300-500 chars): Personal experience 3. Problem Detail (200-300 chars): Specific issue 4. Solution (300-400 chars): Product + 3-4 benefits 5. Social Proof (100-200 chars): Metrics/customer name 6. CTA (50-100 chars): Direct command + link ## Part 2: Patterns for MAXIMUM ENGAGEMENT (CTR + Dwell Time) ### Key Differences from LP-Optimized TLAs #### Shorter Text (60% <1,000 chars) - Engagement: 600-1,000 chars - LP clicks: 1,000-1,500 chars #### More Provocative Hooks (30%) - “2 years ago I thought LinkedIn ads were a complete waste of money” (9.43% overall CTR) - “People have been sneak-dissing me…” (7.87% overall CTR) #### 25% Have NO Link - Pure engagement posts generate discussion - Example: “It’s been exactly 3 [months since we launched our ABM campaign…”](/blog/productive-case-study) (17.39% overall CTR, 0% LP CTR) #### More Emojis (50%) - Emojis drive reactions but reduce professional clicks - Use 3-5 emojis for engagement vs 1-3 for LP clicks #### No Direct CTA (35%) - Conversation starters vs action drivers - Open-ended questions invite debate #### High-Engagement Elements: - Personal vulnerability (admitting mistakes) - Specific dollar amounts ($650k pipeline) - “Us vs them” positioning - Controversial opinions ## Part 3: ❌ ANTI-PATTERNS (What Kills LP Clicks) ### What Bottom 20 TLAs Do Wrong #### 1. Corporate “We” Voice (45%) - vs 20% in top performers - Feels impersonal and sales-y #### 2. Generic Opening Statements (40%) Bottom Performers: - “Running an agency is a constant balancing act” (0.04% LP CTR) - “Project planning is no easy task” (1.03% LP CTR) - “Are agencies going to disappear?” (0.07% LP CTR webinar) #### 3. Link in Middle of Text (40%) - vs 20% in top performers - Interrupts value delivery #### 4. Webinar CTAs (20%) - Consistently 0.07-0.08% LP CTR - People won’t register for webinars via TLA #### 5. Overly Long Tangential Stories (20%) “The Accountant Story” Pattern: - Appears 4 times in bottom 20 - 2,000+ characters - Story takes 60% before product mention - 0.06-0.12% LP CTR #### 6. Vague Offers (30%) - “Learn more” - “Check it out” - “Transform your decision-making” #### 7. Bracketed Links (20%) - “[Check out the report here – link]” - Reduces perceived clickability - 0% in top performers, 20% in bottom #### 8. Hashtag Spam (25%) - 5-7 hashtags at end - Looks desperate - 5% in top vs 25% in bottom #### 9. Future-Focused Without Pain (15%) - “As we stand on the cusp of 2026…” - “Data delays are soon to be a relic…” - Start with pain NOW, not future vision #### 10. Survey Data Instead of Results (25%) - “We surveyed 180 agencies…” - NOT compelling; use customer outcomes ## Comparison Table: Top vs Bottom Performers | **Pattern Element** | **Top LP Click** | **Top Engagement** | **Bottom LP Click** | **Key Insight** | | 1st Person “I” | 65% | 55% | 30% | Personal voice = trust | | Link at Bottom | 75% | 40% | 25% | Value first, ask second | | Personal Story | 45% | 50% | 25% | Must be crisp & relevant | | Specific Metrics | 45% | 60% | 10% | Numbers engage & convert | | Free Trial | 25% | 15% | 5% | Specific periods win | | Long (>1500) | 55% | 30% | 35% | Long = valuable, not verbose | | Problem Hook | 65% | 45% | 20% | Pain → Solution = clicks | | Line Breaks | 100% | 100% | 70% | Mandatory for readability | | Emojis | 35% | 50% | 40% | More emojis = engagement | | Direct CTA | 50% | 20% | 25% | Direct commands work | | Corporate “We” | 20% | 30% | 45% | Corporate = lower CTR | | No Offer | 5% | 35% | 25% | Engagement ≠ conversion | | Webinar CTA | 0% | 0% | 20% | Webinars consistently fail | | Bracketed Links | 0% | 5% | 20% | Brackets kill clicks | ## 📋 **LinkedIn ABM** PRESCRIPTIVE RECOMMENDATIONS ### Formula #1: Maximize Landing Page Clicks THE EXACT FORMULA: Tone: 1st person “I” (founder/expert voice) Length: 1,000-1,500 characters Structure: [HOOK] (50-100 chars) Relatable pain or vulnerability “I’ve seen so many businesses…” [BACKSTORY] (300-500 chars) Personal experience with problem “For years, our financials looked solid…” [TURNING POINT] (200-300 chars) “Turns out, we were…” [SOLUTION + BENEFITS] (300-400 chars) 3-4 specific outcomes with ✅ 👍 Benefit 1 👍 Benefit 2 👍 Benefit 3 [SOCIAL PROOF] (100-200 chars) “$650k pipeline in 90 days” OR “[Customer Name] built with [Product]” [CTA + LINK] (50-100 chars) “Want to find out more? Head to [link]” Offer: “37-day free trial” OR “FREE ungated [resource]” Formatting: - Short paragraphs (1-2 sentences) - Line breaks every 2-3 lines - 1-3 emojis total (👍, 👇, 👉) - ✅ for benefits - 0-2 hashtags max ### Formula #2: Maximize Engagement THE ENGAGEMENT FORMULA: Tone: 1st person “I” with vulnerability or contrarian take Length: 600-1,000 characters (shorter) Hook: Provocative - “2 years ago I thought [popular thing] was a waste…” - “People have been sneak-dissing me…” Structure: - Bold hook - Quick before/after story - Specific $ results - Opinion/learning - Optional link (or NO link for pure engagement) Formatting: - 3-5 emojis - Numbered lists - Question endings (invite discussion) ### Formula #3: What to AVOID ❌ NEVER: 1. Generic corporate voice – “Running an agency is a balancing act” 2. Link in middle – Build value first 3. Webinar CTAs – 0.07% LP CTR consistently 4. 2,000+ char tangential stories – “Accountant story” pattern 5. Bracketed links – [Check here – link] 6. Hashtag spam – 5+ hashtags 7. Dense paragraphs – No line breaks = skip 8. Future vision hooks – “As we stand on the cusp of 2026…” 9. Survey data – “We surveyed 180…” (not compelling) 10. Vague CTAs – “Learn more”, “Check it out” ## Ready-to-Use Template ### High LP CTR Template [HOOK – Specific Pain] I’ve seen so many [target audience] still [painful current state]. It works, until it doesn’t. It’s just not built for [goal]. [BACKSTORY] For years, our [business area] looked [good on surface]. [Metric] up. [Metric] stable. But I couldn’t shake the feeling we were missing something. Turns out, we were. [PROBLEM DETAIL] Our [old system] was [specific problem]. It masked [negative outcome]. We were [inefficient process] just to get close to the truth. That kind of [problem characteristic] doesn’t scale. [SOLUTION] That’s why we moved to [Product/Solution]. Now, [outcome is automatic]: 👍 [Specific benefit 1 with metric] 👍 [Specific benefit 2 with outcome] 👍 [Specific benefit 3 with transformation] [SOCIAL PROOF] [Customer Name/Your company] achieved [specific metric: “$650k pipeline in 90 days”] [CTA] Want to find out more? Head to [link] 👇 Expected Performance: 1.0-3.0% LP CTR ## Key Success Metrics TOP 20 LP CTR: - Average LP CTR: 1.18% - Average Overall CTR: 8.32% - Average Length: 1,183 characters - Average Dwell: 7.2 seconds BOTTOM 20 LP CTR: - Average LP CTR: 0.09% (13× worse) - Average Overall CTR: 1.35% - Average Length: 1,043 characters - Average Dwell: 6.4 seconds INSIGHT: Length alone doesn’t determine performance. VALUE DENSITY and STRUCTURE matter more than word count. # LinkedIn Thought Leader Ad (TLA) Content Analysis ## Analysis Date: December 28, 2025 — ## Executive Summary This analysis examines 60 [LinkedIn Thought Leader Ads across three performance](/blog/track-the-roi-of-linkedin-ads) tiers: – \*\*Top 20 by CTR to Landing Page\*\* (0.81% – 3.42% LP CTR) – \*\*Top 20 by Overall CTR\*\* (0.24% – 17.39% overall engagement) – \*\*Bottom 20 by CTR to Landing Page\*\* (0.04% – 0.15% LP CTR) \*\*Key Finding:\*\* The highest-performing TLAs for driving landing page traffic use \*\*personal narrative storytelling\*\* with \*\*clear problem-solution frameworks\*\*, place links in the \*\*bottom 25% of text\*\*, and maintain a \*\*1st person “I” voice\*\*. They average \*\*1000-1500 characters\*\* and include \*\*visible social proof with specific metrics\*\* ## Images - https://cdn.zenabm.com/media/Dashboard-scaled.png - https://cdn.zenabm.com/media/ZenABM-LinkedIn-campaign-performance-metrics.png - https://cdn.zenabm.com/media/ZenABM-LinkedIn-ABM-Campaign-Effectiveness-Reports-.png - https://cdn.zenabm.com/media/ZenABM-LinkedIn-ABM-Budget-2026.png - https://cdn.zenabm.com/media/ZenABM-Linkedin-ABM-Performance-Benchmarks.png - https://cdn.zenabm.com/media/ZenABM-ABM-best-practices-infographic.png