Our newsletterVendor reportHockeyStack, 15 Dec 2025
Q3 2025 delivered the highest LinkedIn Ads pipeline ROI at 6.01x and the strongest average CTR at 0.96%
Performance measurement
| Metric | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CTR (%) | 0.82 | — | 0.96 | — |
| CPC (USD) | 10.48 | — | 15.72 | — |
| ROI (x) | 2.44 | 2.53 | 6.01 | 2.46 |
LinkedIn Ads Key Metrics & Benchmarks by Quarter, 2025
LinkedIn Ads Key Metrics & Benchmarks by Quarter, 2025- Reader Note:
- Both halves are a best quarter picked out of roughly twelve in the dataset, which is where a high reading is most likely to be noise. Pipeline return is not revenue: it counts opportunities that HockeyStack's own position-based attribution model assigns to LinkedIn, and the qualification steps behind it, MQL and SQO, run on custom high-intent criteria the report does not publish. So two accounts could buy identically and report different figures. Alongside click-through rate, click price and return, the report gives the quarterly shape of the programme: the budget split 27.5%, 18%, a share higher than Q2, and 31% from Q1 to Q4; MQL efficiency of 27% of spend for 27% of MQLs in Q1, 18% for 30% in Q2, 22% for 22% in Q3 and 31% for 20% in Q4; an SQO conversion cycle lengthening from 24 to 45, 62 and 68 days; and pipeline of $646,667 in February rising to $1.5M by Q3 before slowing in Q4. One caution on the returns: Q1 to Q3 are reported as pipeline ROI and Q4 as revenue ROI, so the four quarters are not one series.
- Evidence:
- Observed behaviour
- Vendor interest:
- Moderate — This comes from a company with a commercial interest in this market, so it is not a neutral source.
- Sample:
- Observed data from more than 70 B2B SaaS companies over the past 3 years, ranging from $5M to $1B ARR and $5K to $120K ACV, covering $28M in LinkedIn ad spend.
Reader Note:
Evidence:
Vendor interest:
Sample:Good for
Getting a rough orientation, and deciding what to check yourself.
Not for
- Saying that one thing caused another, or predicting what you would get.
- This comes from a company with a commercial interest in this market, so it is not a neutral source.
- This is an aggregated or average number that covers very different cases. Real results in a particular segment may differ.
- Nobody counted this directly — it's a calculation. The publisher worked it out itself, or took the ad platform's word for what its ads achieved.
- The source never says how this number was measured.
- This result turned up while the researchers were searching the data. It has not been tested a second time.
- The source says how much it looked at, but not how any of it was chosen.
Related cards
Performance measurementTrend
Platform engagement and real effectiveness only line up in about one out of three creator ads, so most engaging content isn’t what will grow your brand
TrendPerformance measurementIdea
Idea
Open full graphMost marketers are making or planning changes to performance measurement for the AI web, mainly tracking brand visibility and citations in AI tools
Performance measurementTrend
Buyers often use Google Search or visit a cited website directly after seeing a brand mentioned in an AI answer
Go deeper on this topic
Our Substack turns the data behind these cards into full breakdowns: what changed, why, and what to do about it.
