If you run service ads on both Facebook and Google — or you're deciding between them — you've probably wondered which platform actually delivers a better cost per lead. The answer isn't the same for every business or every season. But we can show you what it looks like in practice with real numbers from a client we manage on both platforms at the same time.
This post pairs with our CPL benchmarks by industry vertical, which covers what cost-per-lead looks like across home cleaning, lawn care, and medical aesthetics. This one goes deeper on a single client running both platforms simultaneously.
We manage paid advertising for a Winnipeg-based lawn care and snow removal company on both Meta (Facebook and Instagram) and Google Ads. Both campaigns run to the same geographic area, targeting the same pool of potential customers. This makes it a genuinely clean comparison — same service, same city, same buying season, different platforms.
November 2025 — Early Snow Season:
In November, Meta generated more than twice as many leads at roughly half the CPL. The $42 vs. $84 gap is not marginal — it's the difference between a campaign that pays for itself and one that struggles to.
December 2025 — Peak Snow Season:
By December, the gap had almost completely closed. Meta's CPL rose by $12 (more competition in the auction as demand peaked), while Google's CPL dropped by nearly $28 — falling from $84.80 all the way to $57.09. By the heart of snow season, the two platforms were at near-parity on cost per lead.
Facebook Ads is an interruption channel. You're showing your ad to someone who wasn't specifically looking for snow removal — but your creative catches their attention and creates demand. This works well when the buying window is open but intent hasn't fully kicked in yet.
Google Ads is an intent channel. You're capturing someone who just typed "snow removal Winnipeg" — which means they're already close to hiring. The cost-per-click on Google search tends to run 3–4x higher than Meta (you can see that in the numbers: $1.08–$1.09 on Meta vs. $3.28–$3.84 on Google). But when heavy snowfall hit in December and search volume spiked, all those high-intent searches drove Google's CPL down significantly.
The short version: Google's lead quality tends to be higher, but the volume and efficiency of Meta tends to be better — especially before your busy season fully kicks in.
For most local service businesses, the answer isn't Facebook or Google — it's both, weighted by season and goal.
Use Meta to build volume early and dominate your category before your busy season. Use Google to capture high-intent buyers when search demand peaks. If you only have budget for one platform, Meta tends to win on sheer lead volume for most service verticals. But Google leads often close at a higher rate because the intent is already there when someone types your service into a search bar.
The most effective campaigns we run use Meta to generate leads at scale and Google to catch bottom-of-funnel buyers. Together, they cover the full spectrum of where your customers are in their decision-making process — from "I've been meaning to book a cleaner" to "I need someone here by Thursday."
CPL is only half the picture. A Google lead who searched "Winnipeg snow removal company" and clicked your ad is a different buyer than someone who saw your Facebook video while scrolling. Google leads often require less nurturing and close faster. Meta leads require a stronger follow-up sequence but can be generated at much higher volume.
When we look at blended performance across both platforms, the combination consistently outperforms either channel running alone. The data above is one client's numbers, but the pattern holds across most of the service verticals we work in.
To understand what these CPL numbers mean for your bottom line, read our post on what a good ROAS looks like for local service businesses.
Wondering how your current platform mix compares? Book a free ad review and we'll walk through your numbers.
Our latest news and trending topics
