adlaneSign in Comparison
Google Ads vs Facebook Ads: goals, reports and what not to add
Google Ads and Facebook Ads (now Meta Ads, covering Facebook and Instagram) suit different tasks. Search advertising tends to capture demand that already exists; Meta placements tend to introduce an offer to people who were not looking for it. Each platform reports under its own definitions and attribution settings, so a useful comparison starts with the business objective and the quality of outcomes rather than with one cheap interaction metric.
By Adlane · Updated
When does Google Ads suit the goal, and when does Facebook Ads?
Ask what the campaign is for before asking which platform is better. A business whose customers search for the product by name or category has intent to capture, which is what Search campaigns are built around. A business with a new or unfamiliar product needs to create interest first, which is where feed and story placements, with their audience and creative tools, tend to be used. Many businesses need both at different stages.
The table summarises typical fits. It describes what each platform is designed for, not a prediction of results for any account.
| Question | Google Ads | Facebook Ads (Meta) |
|---|---|---|
| Where does demand come from? | Existing searches for a product or problem | Audiences defined by interests, behaviours or lists |
| Typical first use | Search campaigns on queries that match the offer | Feed, story and reel placements introducing the offer |
| Main targeting input | Keywords, match scope, location, audience signals | Audience definitions, placements, creative |
| Main report emphasis | Search terms, clicks, conversions by action | Reach, frequency, results by optimisation event |
| Attribution control | Per conversion action, account model | Per ad set attribution setting |
How Google Ads and Facebook Ads reports differ
Google Ads reports around the query: the search terms report shows which searches triggered ads, and conversions are counted per conversion action under the account’s attribution model and window. Costs are returned in micros through the API. Meta reports around the audience: reach, frequency and placement breakdowns are first-class, results follow the optimisation event chosen for each ad set, and purchases are credited under the ad set’s attribution setting, which may include views.
Even shared words differ. A click in Google Ads is a click on the ad; Meta distinguishes link clicks from all clicks. An impression is counted under different rules on each platform. Keep each platform’s fields and labels intact in a comparison rather than renaming them into a common column.
Illustrative example: cheaper clicks on one platform settle nothing
Illustrative example: a Search campaign spends 1,000 at 2.50 per click and records 40 enquiries; a Meta campaign spends 1,000 at 0.60 per click and records 25 enquiries. Meta’s clicks were four times cheaper, yet its cost per enquiry was 40 against the Search campaign’s 25. Now add the context that the Search campaign targeted people already looking for the service while the Meta campaign introduced it to people who had never heard of it.
Neither figure settles which campaign created more business value. The Search enquiries might have arrived anyway through organic results; the Meta enquiries might be new demand with a longer sales cycle. The numbers are invented and prove only that click cost cannot carry the comparison.
Why Google Ads and Facebook Ads attributed results cannot be added
Both platforms may claim the same purchase. A customer who clicked a search ad and later saw a Meta ad before buying can be credited by both, under each platform’s rules. Adding the two credited counts produces a total that can exceed real orders. Adding attributed conversion value and dividing by combined spend produces a blended ROAS with the same flaw.
Keep the platform figures separate and reconcile against the business’s own order or lead records. Where a reconciliation is not possible, label the combined total as unavailable rather than presenting a sum.
What evidence would justify moving budget between them?
Group campaigns by goal before comparing: an awareness campaign and a search capture campaign should not compete on cost per enquiry. Record the account currencies, complete periods and attribution settings for both sides. Then compare delivery and attributed outcomes with their source labels intact, alongside downstream quality such as qualified rate or order value.
Ask what additional evidence would be needed before reallocating: a longer period, a matured conversion window, a holdout or lift test, or a check that the two campaigns do not reach the same people. Write those open questions into the review rather than resolving them by assumption. A reallocation is itself an experiment, so record the expected effect and the date on which it will be checked.
How to build the side-by-side review in Adlane
Connect both the Google Ads and Meta accounts for the business and ask a bounded question: “For September, show spend, clicks, completed enquiries, cost per enquiry and attribution setting for each platform separately, in the account currency, grouped by campaign goal.” Adlane returns platform-specific evidence and keeps attributed conversions apart rather than totalling them.
If the review leads to a budget change on either platform, Adlane prepares a proposal that you approve or reject; the conversation never applies it. Free CPC, CPA and ROAS calculators on the site are available for checking the per-platform arithmetic.