Services / Efficiency sidecar
The cheapest B2B clicks most accounts never buy
Microsoft Advertising averages around $1.54 per search click against Google's $2.69, on an audience that skews desktop, senior, and B2B. It will not replace Google. Run as 15–20% of search budget, it reliably buys the same intent for less.
Why is Microsoft cheaper than Google?
Fewer bidders in the auction. Bing, Edge, and the Windows search surfaces carry meaningful professional traffic, but most advertisers never set up the account, so competition stays thin and cost per click runs roughly 40% below Google. Thin also means limited: impression volume is a fraction of Google's, which is why we size it as a sidecar and never promise scale from it.
How do we run it?
- Import from Google, then re-tune: bids down to Microsoft's auction, device modifiers desktop-first, negatives rebuilt from Microsoft's own query data
- Search terms reviewed on the same weekly cadence as Google, under the same guardrail system
- UET tagging set up during the tracking engagement, so both platforms count the same actions
- One combined report: CPA per platform, side by side, every month
What can Microsoft target that Google cannot?
LinkedIn profiles. Microsoft Advertising is the only search platform with LinkedIn profile targeting: bid adjustments by company, industry, and job function, applied to the same search queries you already buy. For a B2B account that means paying more for a search from someone at a target industry and less for the identical words typed by a student. Vendor-reported results run up to 16% higher CTR and 64% higher conversion rates with the layering on, and while we treat vendor aggregates with the usual suspicion, the direction matches what our accounts see.
The practical play is bid modifiers, never exclusions: keep the reach, tilt the spend. An HR-software client boosts human-resources and staffing industries; the industrial client from the lead-cost teardown boosts manufacturing job functions. LinkedIn's own ads charge $8 to $15+ per click for that audience; Microsoft sells the same professional signal wrapped around a $1.54 average search click.
When does Microsoft Ads not make sense?
Under roughly €3,000 of monthly search spend, the 15–20% slice is too small to exit learning phases and the management attention costs more than the efficiency returns. Consumer-mobile products also underperform there: the platform's strength is office-hours desktop intent, in line with the 2026 WordStream data that both platforms' blended CTR sits at 6.64%. Where the profile fits, results follow: the industrial account in this teardown held a 24% CPA advantage on its Microsoft slice for two consecutive quarters.
Frequently asked questions
Usually, as a sidecar rather than a pillar. Average search CPC runs around $1.54 against Google's $2.69, and the audience skews desktop, older, and office-hours professional. Volume is the constraint: expect a fraction of Google's clicks, priced well enough that CPA often lands 20–30% lower.
The common B2B pattern, and ours, is 15–20% of search budget once Google covers proven terms. The industrial client in our lead-cost teardown ran 18% of budget through Microsoft at a CPA 24% below its Google in-account average. We scale that share only while the efficiency gap holds.
Import is the starting point, not the strategy. Microsoft's import tool carries structure over in an afternoon, but bids, negatives, and device modifiers need Microsoft-specific tuning because the auction is thinner and desktop-heavy. We re-review search terms separately; the query mix genuinely differs from Google's.
No. It is bundled into management: one fee, both platforms, one combined waste report. The monthly report shows each platform's CPA side by side, so if Microsoft ever stops earning its 15–20% share, you see it the same month and the budget moves back.
See if the sidecar fits
Send your Google Ads spend and vertical. We reply with a yes or a no, and the budget split we would run.
Ask about Microsoft Ads