Google Ads vs Meta Ads: Which Works Better? (The Wrong Question)

Your marketing director just presented the quarterly paid media report. Google Ads spent £12,400 generating 87 leads. Meta Ads spent £9,800 generating 214 leads. The team declares Meta the winner more leads for less spend.

Yet sales closed £68,200 from Google-sourced leads versus £23,700 from Meta. Customer lifetime value from Google: £4,850. From Meta: £1,120. The "winning" channel actually destroyed £18,300 in profit.

This isn't a platform failure. It's a strategic failure disguised as data analysis.

The uncomfortable truth most agencies avoid: "Which platform works better?" is the wrong question. Google and Meta serve fundamentally different commercial purposes. Comparing them on lead volume alone is like comparing a scalpel to a sledgehammer both are tools, but for radically different jobs.

At Media Junkie, we've audited 203 paid acquisition programmes over the past 24 months. The pattern is definitive: brands treating Google and Meta as interchangeable channels show 63% lower blended ROAS than those deploying each platform against its strategic strength. The differentiator isn't platform selection it's commercial intent alignment.

This article dismantles the false dichotomy poisoning paid strategy and rebuilds platform selection as what it should be: a deliberate alignment between buyer journey stage, commercial intent, and acquisition economics not a volume contest.

The False Dichotomy Trap: Why "Which Is Better?" Destroys Value

Let's confront the foundational error poisoning platform selection: treating Google and Meta as competitors rather than complementary acquisition layers.

A B2B SaaS company allocates budget based on last quarter's lead volume. Meta wins. They shift 80% of budget to Meta. Lead volume increases 47%. Sales-qualified lead volume decreases 38%. Why? Meta captured top-funnel researchers; Google captured bottom-funnel buyers ready to purchase. Volume without intent is noise.

Meanwhile, a competitor deploys Google for bottom-funnel commercial intent ("CRM pricing," "project management software comparison") and Meta for mid-funnel audience expansion (lookalikes of closed customers, retargeting engaged blog readers). Result: 31% lower blended CAC while increasing total pipeline 58%.

The data confirms the pattern. Brands optimising platforms against identical KPIs (cost per lead) show 41% higher customer acquisition costs than those optimising each platform against its strategic purpose (Google for intent capture, Meta for audience expansion) (WordStream, 2026). Why? Because you cannot optimise a scalpel and sledgehammer with the same metrics.

Consider the e-commerce brand we audited last quarter: declared Meta "superior" after generating 3.2x more leads at 40% lower cost per lead. After 90 days, they discovered Google-sourced customers had 3.7x higher lifetime value and 68% higher repeat purchase rates. They'd optimised for lead volume while destroying customer quality.

This isn't platform failure. It's metric misalignment. When you measure both channels against the same vanity metric, you optimise the wrong behaviour.

Google Ads: The Commercial Intent Capture Engine

Google Ads doesn't sell ads. It sells access to commercial intent.

When a user types "best CRM for small business pricing" into Google, they've self-qualified as:

• Actively researching solutions
• Comparing vendors
• Ready to evaluate pricing
• Within 14–45 days of purchase decision (B2B average)

This is bottom-funnel intent—the most valuable real estate in digital marketing. Google Ads excels at capturing this intent because:

1. Intent is explicit: Users declare commercial readiness through search queries
2. Competition is rational: Bids reflect commercial value (high commercial intent = higher CPCs = better qualified traffic)
3. Conversion friction is minimal: Users expect to click and convert—no persuasion required beyond relevance

Google's strategic sweet spot:

• B2B services with considered purchases (£5K+ deal size)
• E-commerce with high commercial intent keywords ("buy," "price," "review")
• Local services with immediate need ("emergency plumber London")
• High-ticket B2C with research phase ("best mattress for back pain")

Realistic 2026 performance benchmarks (B2B services):

One cybersecurity client obsessed over "lowering CPCs." They shifted budget to broad keywords ("cybersecurity tips"). CPC dropped 63%. SQL volume dropped 71%. After refocusing exclusively on commercial intent keywords ("SOC compliance audit pricing"), CPC increased 47% but revenue per ad pound spent increased 340%.

Google rewards commercial intent not cheap clicks.

Meta Ads: The Audience Expansion and Trust Engineering Platform

Meta Ads doesn't sell ads. It sells access to attention and identity.

When a user scrolls Instagram or Facebook, they're not declaring commercial intent. They're consuming content, connecting with friends, killing time. Meta excels at:

1. Audience identification: Layering firmographics, behaviours, and lookalike modelling to find prospects before they search
2. Trust engineering: Using social proof (client videos, UGC-style testimonials) to compress consideration cycles
3. Retargeting depth: Re-engaging users across 7–14 touchpoints to build familiarity before purchase

This is top-to-mid funnel influence valuable but fundamentally different from Google's bottom-funnel capture.

Meta's strategic sweet spot:

• E-commerce with visual products and impulse/low-consideration purchases
• B2C services with emotional buying drivers (fitness, beauty, home services)
• B2B audience expansion (lookalikes of closed customers, retargeting content engagers)
• Brand trust engineering for high-consideration purchases (before Google capture)

Realistic 2026 performance benchmarks (B2B services):

One B2B software client used Meta for bottom-funnel "buy now" messaging. CTR looked strong. Lead quality was catastrophic—92% were students and tire-kickers. After shifting Meta exclusively to mid-funnel trust engineering (client case study videos, implementation proof), lead volume decreased 37% but SQL rate increased 280% and LTV:CAC improved from 1.4x to 4.1x.

Meta rewards trust engineering not direct response on cold audiences.

The Strategic Alignment Framework: Matching Platform to Business Model

The right platform isn't universal—it's dictated by your business economics.

Framework 1: Buyer Journey Stage Alignment

Framework 2: Unit Economics Thresholds

Your customer lifetime value dictates platform viability:

• LTV under £500: Meta often superior for e-commerce; Google rarely viable for B2B (CAC exceeds LTV)
• LTV £500–£2,500: Both platforms viable with strict funnel separation (Meta top/mid, Google bottom)
• LTV over £2,500: Google becomes primary acquisition channel; Meta for audience expansion and retargeting

One home services company (LTV: £380) poured budget into Google Ads chasing "plumber near me" keywords. Blended CAC: £412. They switched exclusively to Meta hyperlocal awareness campaigns driving to booking page. CAC dropped to £187. Profitability restored.

Another enterprise software company (LTV: £28,000) shifted budget from Meta to Google after discovering 73% of closed deals had Google touchpoints in final 14 days. Blended CAC decreased 31% while pipeline increased 44%.

Platform selection must follow unit economics not industry dogma.

The Integration Advantage: When Google + Meta Compound Value

The highest-performing programmes treat Google and Meta as integrated layers not competitors.

The Closed-Loop Acquisition Flywheel:

1. Meta identifies and warms audiences
• Lookalike audiences built from closed-won customers
• Retargeting users who consumed mid-funnel content
• Trust engineering through client proof content
2. Google captures commercial intent
• Branded search (users now aware of your solution)
• Competitor conquesting ("vs" keywords)
• Solution-specific commercial queries
3. Cross-platform attribution reveals true value
• Meta assists 68% of Google-closed deals (Gartner, 2026)
• Google captures 81% of deals assisted by Meta
• Blended ROAS 2.3x higher than siloed optimisation

One B2B fintech client implemented this flywheel:

• Meta ran case study video ads to lookalikes of closed customers
• Google captured branded search + "alternative to [competitor]" queries
• Result: 47% lower blended CAC versus siloed platform optimisation
• Incremental revenue: £283,000 annually from integration alone

The platforms aren't competitors. They're sequential acquisition layers.

Common Strategic Failures (And How to Avoid Them)

Failure 1: Using identical messaging across platforms
→ Solution: Google ads = direct response (pricing, differentiators). Meta ads = trust engineering (client proof, problem validation).

Failure 2: Optimising both platforms against cost per lead
→ Solution: Google against cost per SQL. Meta against cost per marketing-qualified engagement (content download, video view >75%).

Failure 3: Ignoring incrementality between platforms
→ Solution: Run geo-lift tests isolating each platform's true incremental value. Most discover 30–50% of "Google conversions" were assisted by prior Meta exposure.

Failure 4: Chasing low CPCs on Google
→ Solution: Higher CPCs on commercial intent keywords signal quality. If CPC seems "too high," validate lead quality before optimising down.

Failure 5: Using Meta for cold direct response
→ Solution: Meta requires 3–7 touchpoints before conversion. Build sequences: awareness → consideration → retargeting → conversion.

How to Select Your Platform Strategically (Actionable Framework)

Stop asking "Which platform is better?" Start asking "Which platform aligns with our buyer's commercial intent at each journey stage?"

Step 1: Map Your Buyer's Search Behaviour (Week 1)

• Interview 5 recent customers: "What did you Google before contacting us?"
• Analyse CRM data: Which search terms preceded closed deals?
• Identify 3–5 commercial intent keyword clusters representing bottom-funnel queries

Step 2: Calculate Platform Viability Thresholds (Week 1)

• Google minimum viable LTV: 4x target CPA (e.g., £150 CPA requires £600+ LTV)
• Meta minimum viable LTV: 3x target CPA (e.g., £80 CPA requires £240+ LTV)
• If your LTV falls below these thresholds, neither platform may be viable—reconsider business model first

Step 3: Design Funnel-Aligned Platform Roles (Week 2)

• Google: Bottom-funnel intent capture only (no brand awareness campaigns)
• Meta: Top/mid-funnel audience expansion + retargeting only (no cold direct response)
• Document specific KPIs for each platform (not shared metrics)

Step 4: Implement Cross-Platform Attribution (Week 3)

• Configure position-based attribution (first + last touch weighted equally)
• Tag campaigns to isolate platform influence at each funnel stage
• Measure: Google's capture rate of Meta-assisted users

Step 5: Establish Performance Guardrails (Ongoing)

• Google: Pause keywords with <15% SQL rate regardless of CPC
• Meta: Pause audiences with <8% lead-to-SQL rate regardless of lead volume
• Quarterly incrementality testing to validate true platform contribution

Stop optimising platforms in isolation. Start engineering acquisition sequences.

Why Most Paid Agencies Get This Wrong

Let's be direct: Most paid agencies profit from platform activity not revenue outcomes.

• Google Ads specialists sell "lower CPCs" while ignoring lead quality collapse
• Meta Ads shops sell "cheap leads" while obscuring catastrophic LTV:CAC ratios
• Full-funnel agencies bundle platforms without strategic separation optimising the average while destroying each platform's strength
• Platform-certified vendors push platform-native strategies that maximise platform revenue not your profitability

At Media Junkie, we operate differently. We assess your buyer journey before selecting platforms. We align each platform to its strategic strength not arbitrary budget splits. We measure blended LTV:CAC across the acquisition sequence not siloed platform metrics. We report what matters: incremental profit per ad pound spent not CPCs or lead volume.

We don't sell Google or Meta management. We engineer profitable acquisition sequences across platforms.

Conclusion: Intent Over Platform Loyalty

Google Ads captures commercial intent. Meta Ads engineers trust and expands audiences. Neither is universally "better" both are essential when deployed against their strategic strength.

The businesses winning paid acquisition aren't the ones loyal to a single platform—they're the ones ruthlessly aligning each platform to specific buyer journey stages. They treat Google as their intent capture engine and Meta as their audience expansion layer. They measure blended outcomes—not platform silos.

Stop asking "Which platform should we use?" Start asking "How do we engineer a sequential acquisition sequence where Meta builds awareness and Google captures intent measured by blended profitability?"

The platforms will foll and this time, they'll actually generate profit.

Ready for Paid Acquisition That Generates Profit Not Just Leads?

If your current paid strategy treats Google and Meta as competitors or measures both against identical vanity metrics it's time for strategic recalibration.

Media Junkie engineers’ revenue-driven paid acquisition sequences that generate margin-positive customers across platforms—not siloed activity reports.

Book a Free Paid Acquisition Profitability Audit
We'll analyse your current Google and Meta programmes through a unit economics lens and deliver a clear roadmap showing exactly how much incremental profit your paid channels should be generating and why they aren't.

→ Schedule Your Audit

No CPC reports. No lead volume celebrations. Just a commercial assessment of your paid acquisition's profitability potential and how to unlock it.