Wondering if your TLAs are performing well and looking for some Thought Leader Ads benchmarks to compare? After analyzing 2,828 ads across 211 companies for our 2026 LinkedIn ABM Benchmarks Report, I found out they deliver 6.4x higher click-through rates than single image ads, 77% cheaper landing page clicks (you need to calculate the Cost Per Landing Page Click a bit differently as it’s not an out-of-the-box metric, but I’ll talk about it in a bit), and the longest dwell time of any ad type on the platform.
This post breaks down every TLA benchmark from our dataset so you can measure your campaigns against what top performers are actually achieving in 2026.
Let’s look at TLA benchmarks at a glance – with some explanation below (it’s a pecurial format and some benchmarks need to be treated differently than other ads):
| Metric | TLA Benchmark (Median) | Single Image Benchmark | TLA Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| CTR | 2.68% (~10% – high) | 0.42% | 6.4x higher |
| eCTR (CTR to landing page) | 0.43% (~1% – high) | 0.42% | 0-3x higher |
| CPC | $2.29 | $13.23 | 83% cheaper |
| CPC to Landing Page | $3.06 | $13.23 | 77% cheaper |
| CPM | $49.37 | $59.15 | 17% cheaper |
| Dwell Time | 6.63 seconds | 3.64 seconds | 1.8x longer |
| Efficiency Score | 9.5 / 10 | 3.2 / 10 | 3x higher |
| LP Clicks per $1K Spend | 327 clicks | 71 clicks | 4.3x more |
| Recommended Budget Share | 7-10% | 40-50% | – |
TLAs are the best-performing ad format on LinkedIn. Not by a small margin – by a massive one. In our benchmarks report, TLAs scored a 9.5 out of 10 on our efficiency index – the highest of any format. Here are the headline benchmarks for Thought Leader Ads from our 2026 dataset. These are medians, not averages – meaning they represent the typical campaign, not one skewed by outliers.
| Metric | TLA Benchmark (Median) | Single Image Benchmark | TLA Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| CTR | 2.68% (~10% – high) | 0.42% | 6.4x higher |
| eCTR (CTR to landing page) | 0.43% (~1% – high) | 0.42% | 0-3x higher |
| CPC | $2.29 | $13.23 | 83% cheaper |
| CPC to Landing Page | $3.06 | $13.23 | 77% cheaper |
| CPM | $49.37 | $59.15 | 17% cheaper |
| Dwell Time | 6.63 seconds | 3.64 seconds | 1.8x longer |
| Efficiency Score | 9.5 / 10 | 3.2 / 10 | 3x higher |
| LP Clicks per $1K Spend | 327 clicks | 71 clicks | 4.3x more |
| Recommended Budget Share | 7-10% | 40-50% | – |
The number that stands out most to me: $1,000 in TLA spend delivers 327 landing page clicks, compared to just 71 for single image ads. That is 4.3x more people on your landing page for the same budget. When you are running LinkedIn ABM campaigns, that kind of efficiency changes everything about how you allocate budget.
A 2.68% median CTR on LinkedIn is remarkable. To put that in context, here is how it compares across every ad format we tracked:
| Ad Format | Median CTR | CTR vs TLAs |
|---|---|---|
| Thought Leader Ads | 2.68% | Baseline |
| Single Image Ads | 0.42% | 6.4x lower |
| Carousel Ads | 0.32% | 8.4x lower |
| Video Ads | 0.24% | 11.2x lower |
TLAs get 6.4x more clicks than the next best format. The reason is straightforward: they look like organic posts from real people, not ads from company pages. LinkedIn’s feed is built for personal content. When a founder or practitioner shares their perspective, it fits the medium. Corporate ads interrupt it. I have seen this firsthand running campaigns through ZenABM. The same message, same audience, same budget – the TLA version consistently outperforms the branded single image version by 5-7x on CTR. The format itself does a lot of the heavy lifting.
What does a 2.68% CTR mean practically? If your TLAs are hitting 1.5-2%, you are below the median. If you are above 3%, you are in the top quartile. If you are below 1%, something is off – either the content is not resonating, the audience targeting is too broad, or the post itself reads too much like corporate marketing.
The cost story is just as compelling as the CTR story. At a $2.29 median CPC, TLAs are the cheapest click source on LinkedIn by a wide margin. For comparison, single image ads come in at $13.23 CPC (5.8x more expensive) and video ads at $15.61 CPC (6.8x more expensive). But the real number to focus on is CPC to landing page: $3.06. Not every TLA click goes to a landing page – some are profile clicks, “see more” expansions, or reactions. The $3.06 figure captures the cost per person who actually lands on your destination URL. That is still 77% cheaper than a single image ad click, which goes directly to a landing page by default. TLAs give you more qualified clicks (people who chose to read the full post and then clicked through) at a fraction of the cost.
If you are trying to justify reallocating budget toward TLAs, here is the simplest way to frame it:
| Metric | $1K on TLAs | $1K on Single Image |
|---|---|---|
| Total Clicks | ~437 | ~76 |
| Landing Page Clicks | 327 | 71 |
| Impressions | ~20,300 | ~16,900 |
| Dwell Time (total) | ~134,600 seconds | ~61,500 seconds |
Same budget. Over 4x more landing page visitors. Over 2x more total attention time. The efficiency gap is not subtle. Content leads from TLAs can cost as low as $18 per lead when the post links to gated content. Compare that to the typical $50-150 per lead from traditional sponsored content campaigns on LinkedIn. That is the kind of cost advantage that changes your unit economics.
I have written dedicated benchmark breakdowns for each LinkedIn ad format, but here is the full picture in one table. This is what makes TLAs the standout: they win on nearly every metric that matters.
| Metric | TLAs | Single Image | Carousel | Video |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median CTR | 2.68% | 0.42% | 0.32% | 0.24% |
| Median CPC | $2.29 | $13.23 | $13.30 | $15.61 |
| Median CPM | $49.37 | $59.15 | $45.28 | $38.94 |
| Dwell Time | 6.63s | 3.64s | 4.56s | 3.91s |
| Efficiency Score | 9.5 | 3.2 | 2.4 | 1.5 |
| Budget Share | 7-10% | ~42% | ~3% | ~32% |
| Best For | Mid-funnel education, trust | Direct response, offers | Storytelling, walkthroughs | Retargeting warm audiences |
A few things stand out from this comparison: TLAs have the highest dwell time (6.63 seconds). People spend nearly twice as long engaging with TLAs compared to single image ads. This makes sense – TLA posts tend to be longer-form text content that people actually read, rather than a quick glance at an ad creative. TLAs get just 7-10% of budget despite being the most efficient format. This is the biggest misallocation in LinkedIn advertising right now. The format with the highest efficiency score receives the smallest budget share. Most of the money still goes to single image (42%) and video (32%) – formats that score 3.2 and 1.5 on efficiency. CPM is mid-range, but it does not matter. TLAs are not the cheapest per impression ($49.37 vs $38.94 for video). But CPM is a misleading metric when your CTR is 6.4x higher. What matters is cost per outcome – and on that basis, TLAs are in a league of their own.
Beyond the performance benchmarks, we analyzed the creative patterns of the 2,828 ads in our dataset to understand what separates good TLAs from great ones. Here is what the data shows. 
The majority of top-performing TLAs are written in first person. “I tested this approach with 50 accounts” lands differently than “Our team implemented a new methodology.” First person feels like a conversation. Third person feels like a press release. LinkedIn’s feed rewards the former.
This is a consistent pattern among top performers. The link to the landing page or resource appears near the end of the post, not at the beginning or middle. The structure is: hook the reader, deliver value, then offer a next step. When you lead with the link, people have no reason to click – you have not earned their attention yet.
The TLAs that outperform benchmarks are not product pitches disguised as personal posts. They share genuine experiences – what worked, what failed, what surprised the author. The best TLAs read like advice from a trusted peer, not marketing copy from a vendor. This is critical for mid-funnel education and trust building, which is where TLAs deliver the most value. You are not trying to close deals with a TLA. You are building credibility with target accounts so that when they are ready to evaluate solutions, your company is already on the shortlist.
The highest-performing TLAs follow a consistent pattern:
Based on our 2026 benchmark data from 211 companies, the median CTR for TLAs is 2.68%. If your TLAs are consistently hitting 2-3%, you are performing at or near benchmark. Above 3% puts you in the top quartile. Below 1.5% suggests there is room to improve either your content, targeting, or the authenticity of the post. For reference, the average single image ad CTR is just 0.42%, so even a “below average” TLA at 1.5% still outperforms the best traditional ad formats.
Our data shows the typical allocation is 7-10% of total LinkedIn ad budget for TLAs. However, given that TLAs score 9.5 out of 10 on efficiency – far higher than single image (3.2) or video (1.5) – many of the companies in our dataset are underinvesting in this format. If you are running ABM campaigns on LinkedIn, consider gradually increasing TLA budget to 15-20% and measuring the impact on landing page traffic and cost per lead.
TLAs perform best for mid-funnel education and trust building. They are not ideal for cold, top-of-funnel brand awareness (text ads are far cheaper for impressions at ~$2 CPM) or bottom-of-funnel direct response (single image ads with a clear offer work better there). The sweet spot for TLAs is warming target accounts that already have some awareness of you – sharing insights, building credibility, and driving engaged traffic to educational content like guides, case studies, and comparison pages.
