Every quarter or so, LinkedIn publishes industry-level benchmarks for advertisers. The December 2025 release covers the tech industry across three regions — Americas (AMER), EMEA, and APAC, with data segmented by six ad formats, five campaign objectives, and whether LinkedIn Audience Network (LAN) placements are included.
My focus here is the Americas, where Yirla does most of our business, with observations on EMEA and APAC where the regional comparisons are worth the detour. All figures are drawn from LinkedIn's December 2025 benchmark release for the tech industry.
Before getting into the individual findings, here's the single most useful frame for reading this data. In AMER, for lead gen campaigns on LinkedIn only, the median CPL by format ranks like this: Sponsored Messaging at $188, Document Ads at $290, Single Image at $371, Video at $591, and Carousel at $791.
While most B2B tech teams are spending heavily in the middle and top of that ladder, the two most efficient formats are the ones getting the least attention. That inversion is worth sitting with before we go any further.
The Numbers That Should Recalibrate Your Expectations
For single image ads optimized for lead generation in AMER, the median CPL is $371 and the high end is $897. These are not outliers, they represent the normal distribution of performance across tech advertisers on the platform.
A little regional context to consider. EMEA median CPL for the same format and objective is $205. APAC is $79. The 4.7x gap between AMER and APAC is significant, and it's not explained by conversion rate differences. Form fill rates are consistent across all three regions — approximately 6–7% at the good threshold and 13–15% at best in class. The cost disparity is a function of inventory and auction dynamics, not audience quality or offer resonance.
This is an important distinction. If AMER CPL is running high relative to expectations, the problem is probably not the form, the copy, or the targeting. It's the cost to reach the audience. Teams optimizing for conversion rate improvements when the underlying issue is inventory cost are solving the wrong problem.
Sponsored Messaging: The Most Overlooked Format in B2B Paid
Sponsored Messaging, LinkedIn's inbox-delivered ad unit, has the lowest lead gen CPL of any format in AMER at a $188 median, with a low of $81 and a ceiling of $401. EMEA median is $79. APAC median is $17.
The form fill rate is what really stands out. Sponsored Messaging lead gen converts at 41–54% in AMER. No other format comes close. The mechanic explains why: it lands directly in a LinkedIn member's inbox, which is a personal, focused channel where the ask is clear and the context is immediate. Compare that to competing for attention in a scrolling feed, and the conversion difference makes sense.
One operational note: Sponsored Messaging has no LAN equivalent — it's inbox-only by definition. The format with the highest form fill rates and lowest CPL doesn't run on third-party inventory. That's probably not a coincidence.
Document Ads Punch Above Their Weight
Document Ads are consistently underrepresented in most B2B tech programs, which I find hard to explain given the numbers. In AMER, lead gen via Document Ads carries a median CPL of $290 with form fill rates of 22–38%. EMEA median is $194. APAC is $94.
The engagement rate under the engagement objective in AMER is also notable at 8.95–12.4%, among the highest of any format. A user scrolling through a multi-page document is demonstrating active, sustained interest. That self-selection tends to produce warmer leads than a passive feed impression followed by a form click. For teams producing research, frameworks, or detailed content assets, Document Ads offer a direct path to distributing that content and capturing leads simultaneously, at a cost structure that compares favorably to the formats most teams default to.
Carousel Ads Are the Most Expensive Lead Gen Format — By a Wide Margin
This is the finding most likely to prompt a budget reallocation conversation. It's also the one that surprised me the most because I'm a big fan of the format. In AMER, carousel ads optimized for lead generation carry a median CPL of $791 — 2.1x more expensive than single image. In EMEA, the gap widens to 2.7x. APAC is the only region where the premium is narrow enough (1.4x) to be arguable.
The cost premium is compounded by conversion rate differences. Carousel lead gen in AMER produces form fill rates of 1.25–4.05%, versus 6.74–15.32% for single image. The format requires audiences to engage with multiple cards before arriving at the lead gen form, and that friction is structural, not a creative problem.
Carousel is not a lead gen vehicle in AMER or EMEA by the data. It may serve a role in awareness or consideration stages where engagement with multiple content cards is the goal, but advertisers using it as a primary lead gen format in these regions are paying a significant and largely unnecessary premium.
Video: Length Is the Variable That Matters Most
Video's median lead gen CPL in AMER is $591 — higher than single image, lower than carousel. The aggregate number is less instructive here than the completion rate data, which reveals something important: length is the dominant performance variable, and the relationship is steep.
For 0–15 second video in AMER lead gen campaigns, completion rates run 7.7–13.6% at good-to-best-in-class. For videos between 1 and 1.5 minutes, that drops to 0.7–0.9%. The degradation is consistent across all three regions and all objectives.
My new KISS Principle is "Keep It Short & Simple".
The practical answer isn't to stop using video. It's to treat LinkedIn as a short-form medium regardless of what you produce. Fifteen seconds or under is the only length range where the completion rate data supports a conversion strategy. Longer formats may belong in brand awareness or engagement campaigns where completing the full story is the point, but for lead gen, the case for anything over 15 seconds is thin.
The Engagement Objective Is Underrated
The engagement objective in AMER produces a median CPC of $2.87, compared to $23.11 for the lead gen objective, an 8x difference. CTR for engagement campaigns reaches 3.09% at the good threshold and 6.12% at best in class, the highest of any objective across the benchmark data.
Most demand gen teams bypass the engagement objective because it doesn't produce leads directly. That's accurate. It's also a narrow view of how the objective can be used. At 8x lower cost per interaction, engagement campaigns can build warmed audiences efficiently, which then become retargeting pools for lead gen campaigns. The audience that has already engaged with content is warmer than a cold list built on title and company size criteria alone.
For teams running under CPL pressure who default entirely to the lead gen objective, a reallocation toward engagement — with a structured retargeting sequence into lead gen — is worth modeling. The blended CPL impact can be meaningful.
The LAN Question
LinkedIn Audience Network extends ad placements beyond LinkedIn's core feed into a network of third-party publisher sites. The CPM difference is significant: brand awareness campaigns in AMER carry a median CPM of $5.40 with LAN enabled, versus $40.15 without it — a 7.4x gap.
For advertisers running pure reach and awareness campaigns where cost-per-impression is the primary efficiency metric, LAN has a clear use case and the math is straightforward.
The consideration that the benchmarks don't address is audience composition. LAN placements reach LinkedIn-profiled users on third-party inventory, which means the contextual environment changes. For teams running account-based programs where placement context and audience precision matter, the 7.4x CPM discount comes with reduced control over where ads appear and under what conditions they're seen. Whether that tradeoff is acceptable depends on what the campaign is trying to do.
Three Things Worth Acting On
First, audit your format allocation against the CPL ladder before optimizing anything else. If Sponsored Messaging and Document Ads aren't part of your lead gen mix, the benchmark data makes a strong case for testing them. The economics aren't marginal, they're significantly better than the formats most teams default to.
Second, reconsider carousel as a lead gen vehicle in AMER and EMEA. The CPL premium over single image is 2x in AMER and 2.7x in EMEA, compounded by form fill rates that are 5x lower. Reallocating that budget to single image, Document Ads, or Sponsored Messaging should improve CPL without requiring changes to targeting, offers, or creative strategy.
Third, test the engagement-to-lead gen sequence. Build warmed audiences using the engagement objective at $2.87 CPC, then retarget with lead gen campaigns. The economics support the experiment.
A Note on Regional Budget Allocation
For teams with global TAM, the regional CPL differences are too large to ignore in budget planning. An AMER-centric allocation model applied uniformly across global programs is applying the wrong benchmark in markets where LinkedIn lead gen economics look materially different. APAC at $79 median CPL for single image and $17 for Sponsored Messaging, changes what pipeline contribution looks like from a paid channel at a given budget level. That's worth a conversation in the next planning cycle.
Source: LinkedIn Marketing Solutions, Tech Industry Benchmarks, December 2025.