LinkedIn Lead Gen Forms Benchmarks 2026

Everyone averages the cost of a lead. We split it.

Ask ten agencies what a LinkedIn lead costs and you get ten numbers between $50 and $500, every one of them an average of two things that should never be averaged: a download and a meeting. A guide behind a form and a demo request behind a form are different products with different prices, and blending them produces a benchmark nobody can use. So this report does not blend them. Content offers and demo requests sit side by side in every table, by industry, function, seniority, company size, region, format, audience and budget.

It is the third Kiin Labs report, and it is built the way the first and the second were. Every number is a median across advertiser accounts, never a pooled total that the biggest spenders drag around. Every "X is cheaper than Y" is the same advertiser running both, so the comparison is inside one account and not between two kinds of advertiser. Where those two views disagree, and they do four times, the report says so on the page.

What surprised us: a demo form converts at 2% in the feed and 40% in a message ad. Half the difference in cost per lead between accounts is how many people finish the form. Uploaded lists, which are 42% of all lead gen spend, are the dearest audience, and retargeting is a tie with cold. A phone number field costs two thirds of your completions. Audience size does nothing. And the senior leads, the ones everyone assumes are expensive, are the cheapest leads in the campaign.

What we cannot yet say is whether the leads turn into pipeline. That needs form submissions joined to CRM contacts, and it is the next chapter of this report, not this one. Cost is what the platform can prove today, so cost is what this report is about.

Use the tables. Cite the numbers. Tell us where we are wrong.

Phil Ilic
Co-founder and CEO, Kiin · London, September 2026

The panel, the star key, and how to read the numbers

4,010 campaigns, 489 accounts, $13.6M, 86,051 leads. Twenty-four accounts are half the spend, which is why every figure is a median across accounts and every comparison is paired within one.

4,010 lead-generation-objective campaigns with delivery, 489 advertiser accounts, $13.6M, 86,051 form submissions from 572,814 form opens, 8 Sep 2025 to 7 Sep 2026, 14 currencies converted to USD at September 2026 rates. Among accounts that run lead gen forms, the objective is 42% of their LinkedIn spend, and the median account puts half its budget there. Lead type comes from the form itself (headline, description, CTA, thank-you text), not the campaign name: content offers are 36% of spend, demo or sales-call offers 39%.

Star key

Descriptive numbers carry the number of accounts and no star. No cell with fewer than seven accounts is shown. Benchmark tables say what advertisers who target X pay, not what targeting X does to your cost; where a paired check exists it is stated in the same breath, and four times it disagrees with the table.

LinkedIn cost per lead benchmarks 2026, cut twelve ways

The median lead gen form lead costs $185. That number is useless, and this chapter is about why. Twelve cuts, every one content and demo side by side, with the paired check in the same breath.

Split by what the form asks for, $185 becomes $164 for a content offer and $343 for a demo request, and every cut below moves those two numbers differently. The cheapest content lead in the panel costs $9 (LATAM); the dearest demo lead $1,025 (a thought leader ad asking for a demo). Between those sit twelve tables. Use the one that matches your account, and read the paired note under it before you change anything.

1. The distribution

Pooled (spend ÷ leads) is $99 content and $424 demo; pooled figures are dominated by the 34 accounts over $100k and are not quoted. Paired in the 50 accounts running both: demo +51% [−5%, +148%], dearer in 30 of 50, ★★ ns. If you want a "good" number: the top quarter of content accounts is under $67 a lead; the top quarter of demo accounts under $131.

2. By what the form asks for

A 4.8× spread from the cheapest ask to the dearest. Within content, nothing separates the sub-types inside one account (ebook vs webinar −25%, ebook vs report −9%, template vs ebook −21%, all ns, ★); the offer type sets the price, the flavour of content does not. Within demo, meeting or call is not cheaper than demo in the same account (n = 3, directional).

3. By job function targeted

Median CPL, accounts in brackets. Demo cells under seven accounts withheld. The spread on content is 3.3×; on demo 5.5×. Sales is the one function where a demo lead costs less than a content lead; n = 7, directional.

4. By seniority targeted

Seniority is flat: a C-suite lead does not cost more than a manager lead. Paired, director-and-above only vs including managers +17% [−14%, +78%], 12 of 26 ★★ ns; director-only vs no filter +29%, n = 34 ★★ ns. 72% of spend runs with no seniority filter at all.

5. By company size targeted

Enterprise-only looks 2.7× SMB-only on demo. Paired, enterprise-only vs no filter in the same account: −45%, 10 of 14, ★ ns. The table shows who targets enterprise, not what targeting enterprise costs.

6. By billing currency

CAD, DKK, BRL and CHF under seven accounts on at least one side; withheld. The demo lead in a euro account costs the same as a content lead in a euro account: a market fact about who bills in euros, not a currency effect.

7. By industry targeted

Rows at ten or more accounts; cells under seven withheld. The full table, 100-plus industries with content and demo side by side, is published as its own page: LinkedIn cost per lead by industry.

8. By region targeted

Europe is roughly half the US on content and the UK is a fifth cheaper on demo. Paired, US vs Europe in accounts targeting both: +12% [−12%, +51%], n = 23 ★. On content alone, US is −8%. Most of the gap is who advertises in the US, not the auction.

9. By monthly lead gen spend

The biggest spenders pay four times as much per lead as the smallest. That is mix (US, demo, lists, small pools); none of the paired tables show a size effect in the auction.

10. By audience type

Paired, same account: list vs cold +31% [+6%, +58%] ✱ on content, 10 of 30 cheaper, ★★. Retargeting vs cold −9% [−22%, +40%], 34 of 65, ★★ ns. Lists are dearer in the table and dearer paired: a cause. Retargeting is dearer in the table and a tie paired: a description.

11. By format carrying the form

Paired within lead type: document vs single image −22% ✱ ★★ on content; conversation and message ads vs single image −49% and −40% ✱ ★ on demo; video vs single image +60% ✱ ★ overall. Chapter 03 has the mechanism.

12. Bid strategy, targeting method and audience size

None of the settings people argue about most move cost per lead as much as the offer and the format do.

330 cold campaigns, 33 per decile; CPL shown is the content campaigns in each decile, completion is all. Rank correlation of audience size with CPL: −0.03 [−0.14, +0.08] across accounts, −0.13 within; with completion +0.03 / +0.05. The only real size effect is CPM on cold (ρ −0.10 ✱) and it never reaches the lead. Retargeting reverses: across accounts bigger pools look dearer (+0.24), inside one account they are cheaper (−0.32 [−0.54, −0.09], n = 55).

Four places the benchmark table and the paired check disagree

Geography, audience size, seniority and company size describe the market. They are not levers. Bigger audiences look cheaper because of who runs them.

LinkedIn lead gen form conversion rate benchmarks: why the ask sets the price

A demo form converts at 2% in the feed and 40% in a message ad, and half of everything else in this report follows from that.

Form completion rate by where the form sits

Median account, accounts with 100+ form opens. Paired, demo vs content form in the feed: −80% [−85%, −57%] ✱, 46 of 48 ★★.

What explains the difference in CPL between accounts

Share of between-account variance in log CPL, 231 accounts (log CPL = log CPM − log open rate − log completion). Inbox: cost per send 45%, form opens per open 44%.

The click-to-submit gap: form open rate vs completion, by format and offer

Open rates barely vary by format; completion runs from 1.2% to 20.3%, a 17× range.

Best ad format for LinkedIn lead gen forms: documents, the inbox, video, landing pages

Documents win on content, the inbox wins on demo, video loses everywhere, and the form beats the landing page. Plus what the objective itself costs you per impression.

Paired within account, vs single image, content offers

A document form needs 5 opens per lead; a single-image form needs 12. In accounts running both, documents deliver 40% of leads on 36% of spend; the "70% of leads on 13% of spend" story appears in 2 accounts out of 82. Documents are a content format: 157 accounts use them for content, 11 for demo.

Paired within account, vs single image, demo requests

Video is the wrong format for a form: +60% CPL vs single image overall ✱ (4 of 16 cheaper, ★), the highest open rate in the feed and the lowest completion, 80 form opens per demo lead.

The inbox: send to lead

One lead per 220 sends on a message ad content offer; one per 670 on a conversation ad demo. 36% of lead gen form spend runs in the inbox (conversation ads 27%, message ads 9%). Message ads are the cheapest lead on LinkedIn: $98 median, $56 content, $175 demo.

Lead gen form vs landing page, same account

Website-conversion campaigns in the same accounts convert 1.6% of landing page clicks at $721 a lead (median, 23 accounts). Landing page leads are each account's own post-click conversion definitions matched by name, so the comparison is within account only.

The lead gen objective CPM premium, same account, same month, feed

The form is not a free add-on: you pay for the objective in CPM before you pay for the lead. Against engagement there is no premium at all.

How many fields should a LinkedIn lead gen form have? Field count does nothing. One field does everything.

And the form's own copy does not matter; the ask does.

Specific fields, paired within account

The benchmark table says the opposite of the phone finding (phone forms $107 vs $243) because the cheapest accounts ask for phone 59% of the time. Lead with the paired number, explain the table.

Field count: median completion, feed

Paired, short (5 or fewer) vs long (7 or more): +16% completion ns, 14 accounts ★. Custom questions: ns. No clean cliff anywhere. Work email vs any email: ns overall.

Anatomy of the median form, all 4,875 forms

• 6 fields at the median (3 or fewer 7%, 4 10%, 5 21%, 6 24%, 7 20%, 8+ 18%)
• 71% require a work email; 27% accept any email
• 67% ask for job title; 10% for company size; 35% ask for a phone number
• 18% have a consent checkbox
• 81% have no custom question; 11% one, 8% two or more; 3% a free-text question
• 97% send people somewhere from the thank-you page; 6% to a calendar (20% of demo forms)
• 8% mention a gift card or cash incentive

The form copy does not matter. The ask does. Headline length, offer-vs-benefit headline, description length: nothing, all ns at 44 to 69 accounts ★★. Thank-you CTA label: adoption only, no click metric exists in the API.

Lists, retargeting, cold: which audience gives the cheapest LinkedIn lead

Lists are the biggest audience by spend and the dearest. Retargeting is a tie. Audience size does nothing. And the people who submit are more senior than the people who see the ad.

Why lists cost more: list vs cold, same account, content

Same open rate, same completion, dearer impressions, fewer leads per impression. Messaging: list CPL +26% ✱ (15 accounts ★). Retargeting vs cold: CPL −9% [−22%, +40%], 34 of 65 ★★ ns; content +4%, demo −15%, both ns.

Fatigue by audience: CPL index by month since launch

Lists fatigue a month faster than cold; retargeting fatigues worst. Lists under 10,000 people are reached 130 to 150% over within a single campaign; lists over 50,000, 22%.

Who submits: LinkedIn demographic reporting, pooled across campaigns

263 campaigns, 5,666 leads, pooled, not a median account. Director and above: 26% of impressions, 40% of leads. On filtered campaigns, 6% of leads come from outside the seniority filter. Content forms pull enterprise (10k+ companies: 28% of impressions, 44% of leads); demo forms pull micro-companies (2 to 10 people: 26% of impressions, 36% of leads). Marketing converts at 9.5 per 10k impressions, HR 7.0, engineering 2.4.

How much to spend on LinkedIn lead gen: the budget floor, time to first lead, zero-lead months

A quarter of campaign-months produce nothing. The floor is an offer question: content works at $25 a day, demo needs $100. And the campaigns that die do not die of impatience.

Time to first lead: campaigns launched in window, feed

Median days counts campaigns that got a lead. Content needs $25 to 50 a day for a lead a week in half of months; demo needs $100 or more.

Where the zero-lead months are: share of campaign-months ($200+) with no lead

26% of all campaign-months with $200 or more of spend produce zero leads, $1.68M in total. Of the 1,495 zero-lead months, 48% are single image (26% content, 22% demo), 19% conversation-ad demo, 13% document content.

Campaigns do not die of impatience

Of 1,382 feed campaigns that stopped inside the window, only 4% were switched off with no lead before the median time to first lead for their offer and budget (demo 8%, content 3%). The rest waited past the median and still got nothing. 28% of campaigns never produce a lead (demo 32%, content 23%). Half of all lead gen campaigns deliver for 29 days or less; a third for 14 days or less. Most of the panel is short tests, which is the context for every fatigue number in chapter 07.

Lead gen form fatigue, ad copy, and the calendar: when forms tire and what copy does

Forms tire in completion, not in opens. The ad copy matters more than the form copy. And no day or month is better than another.

Fatigue: campaigns running 4+ months, indexed to month one

141 campaigns running 4+ months. CPM falls 16% by month five while CPL rises; the fatigue is inside the form. By week: CPL 108 in week one, flat in weeks two to four, then 116, 120, 135, 128 in weeks five to eight. Demo campaigns reach CPL 200 by month four with completion at 46 (n = 29).

Ad copy: creative level, feed, content offers, paired

Lead rate is leads per 1,000 impressions. Question openers get 64% fewer leads per impression, in 21 of 27 accounts.

Running four or five creatives per campaign has no cost effect on the lead gen objective. Cross-panel, one-creative campaigns cost $123 a lead and 7+ creative campaigns $286, which is mix: big accounts run more creatives.

The calendar: CPL index within account

No seasonality either: CPL index 96 to 103 every month of the year. CPM peaks in December (116) and troughs in January (97; September's 82 is on 10 accounts and not read); CPL does not follow it.

The cheapest 10% of accounts got 537 leads on $8,000. The dearest got 23 on $44,000

And inside the same campaign, the senior leads are the cheap ones: the first published cost per lead by the seniority of the lead.

Cheapest vs dearest decile: 234 accounts with 10+ leads, 23 vs 23

Shares are spend-weighted means within the decile; everything else is the decile median. The dear accounts are US, demo, lists, small pools, and they spend more per campaign to get there.

What a lead costs by who the lead is: within-campaign CPL index

LinkedIn demographic spend, about 14 accounts, ★ directional. The index compares a director lead with a manager lead inside the same campaign, so account mix cannot drive it; every senior segment sits below the campaign average, and entry level, withheld on its own, is what pulls the average up. By function of the lead: Business Development 68 [53, 74] (13 accounts), IT 78, Sales 78, Operations 93.

What good looks like: LinkedIn lead gen form benchmarks by completion rate, open rate and cost per lead

Median, good, exceptional. Three numbers to report on a lead gen campaign: completion rate, cost per form open, cost per lead, each split by what the form asks for.

Form completion rate: submissions ÷ form opens

Median account, accounts with 100+ form opens.

Cost per lead: lower is better

Under $67 a content lead or $131 a demo lead puts you in the top quarter of the panel. Under $28 and $67 is the top tenth.

Form open rate and leads per thousand, median account

Feed p25 0.24%, p75 0.45% (376 accounts). By format: single image 0.39%, document 0.14%, video 0.45%, thought leader ad 0.39%. Inbox content 1.06% of sends, demo 0.35%.

Twenty-two numbers to quote, with what they rest on

Each one a full sentence, free to cite with a link. The base line says what it rests on: accounts, whether it is paired, and the star.

Sixteen LinkedIn lead gen form myths, with the verdict

Terms used in this report

How it was built, what it cannot answer, how to cite

Frequently asked questions about LinkedIn lead gen forms

The questions people search, answered with a number, the n and the method.

What is a LinkedIn lead gen form?

A form attached to a LinkedIn ad that opens inside LinkedIn and pre-fills from the member's profile, so a lead is a tap, not a landing page visit. It runs on the lead generation objective in the feed (single image, document, video, carousel, thought leader ads) and in the inbox (message ads and conversation ads). In this study, 489 advertisers spent $13.6M on the objective in 12 months and collected 86,051 submissions from 572,814 form opens.

What is the average cost per lead on LinkedIn?

There is no useful single number. Across 341 accounts the median is $185, but a content offer (guide, report, webinar, template) costs $164 at the median account and a demo or sales-call request costs $343. The top quarter of content accounts is under $67; the top quarter of demo accounts under $131. Everything else in this report is that split, cut by industry, function, seniority, region, format and audience.

What is a good cost per lead for B2B LinkedIn ads?

Under $67 for a content offer and under $131 for a demo request puts you in the top quarter of the panel. Under $28 and $67 respectively is the top tenth. Above $365 (content) or $741 (demo) is the bottom quarter.

What does a LinkedIn lead cost by industry?

From $20 (higher education, content) to $722 (hospitals, demo) across the 100-plus industries with ten or more accounts in the panel. Software development: $81 content, $459 demo. IT services and IT consulting: $83 content. Financial services: $85 and $224. Technology, information and internet: $102 and $386. Manufacturing: $262 and $144. The full table, content and demo side by side with cells under seven accounts withheld, is at kiin.co/research/linkedin-cost-per-lead-by-industry.

What is a good conversion rate for a LinkedIn lead gen form?

Form completion (submits ÷ opens) in the feed: median 7.6%, good 15.7%, exceptional 27.6%. Content offers 10.8% median; demo requests 2.2%. In a message or conversation ad the median is 40.7%, good 51.8%, exceptional 65.5%. Form open rate (opens ÷ impressions) in the feed is 0.33% at the median.

What is a good CTR for LinkedIn lead gen ads?

On a lead gen campaign the number that matters is form open rate, form opens ÷ impressions: median 0.33% in the feed, p25 0.24%, p75 0.45% across 376 accounts. By format: single image 0.39%, document 0.14%, video 0.45%, thought leader ad 0.39%. In the inbox, 0.43% of sends. It explains only a fifth of the difference in cost per lead between accounts; completion explains half.

How many fields should a LinkedIn lead gen form have?

The field count does not move completion in a measurable way (3 or fewer fields 9.0%, 8+ fields 4.0% cross-panel; short vs long +16% paired, not significant). One specific field does: asking for a phone number cuts completion by 66% in the same account (24 of 27 accounts) and more than doubles cost per lead. The median form has six fields; 71% require a work email, 67% ask for job title, 35% for a phone number.

Are LinkedIn lead gen form leads junk?

On seniority, no: director and above are 26% of impressions and 40% of leads, and 94% of leads on a filtered campaign come from inside the seniority filter. Content forms pull enterprise companies; demo forms pull micro-companies. Whether they become pipeline is the one question this report cannot answer from the platform; it is the v1.1 chapter.

Lead gen form or landing page?

The form, unless the offer is a meeting. In the same accounts, a form lead costs 55% less than a landing page lead, 82% less on content offers, and the same on demo requests (20 / 15 / 7 accounts running both). Landing pages convert 1.6% of clicks at $721 a lead in this panel.

Which ad format is best for LinkedIn lead gen forms?

For content: document ads (−22% cost per lead vs single image in the same account, 20% completion) or message ads ($56 a lead). For demo: message ads ($175) or conversation ads ($365), never a single image ($600, 2.1% completion) and never video (80 form opens per lead; +60% cost per lead vs single image on 16 accounts).

Are document ads better than single image ads for lead gen?

For content offers, yes: 22% lower cost per lead paired within account, cheaper in 30 of 46 accounts. The mechanism is fewer form opens (cost per open +98%) and 174% higher completion, 20.3% vs 8.3%: a document form needs 5 opens per lead, a single-image form 12. Documents are a content format; 157 accounts use them for content and 11 for demo.

Do conversation ads still work for lead gen?

Yes. Conversation ads alone are 27% of lead gen form spend, the inbox as a whole 36%; a form there completes 40% of the time; on demo offers conversation ads are 49% cheaper per lead than single image in the same account, and message ads 40% cheaper. Conversation vs message ad on demo is a tie (+91%, n = 9, not significant), the same result as Report No. 2.

How do I lower my LinkedIn cost per lead?

In order of effect: change the ask (a demo request costs 2.1× a content offer), change the format (documents −22% for content, the inbox −40 to 49% for demo), remove the phone field (−66% completion), run cold before lists (lists +31%), keep budget under $2 a day per 1,000 audience members, and refresh at week four on completion rate. Bid strategy, audience expansion, seniority filters, field count and audience size are not levers.

What are LinkedIn lead gen form best practices?

The thirteen rules Kiin runs: never a demo ask in the feed with a form; judge the campaign on completion rate; documents for content, never for demo; phone number only when sales will dial it; $25 to 50 a day for content and $100 a day for demo; refresh on completion around week four; cold before lists; job titles over function plus seniority; never open with a question or the reader's job title; use the form, not the landing page, unless the offer is a meeting; under $2 a day per 1,000 audience members; weekends and December stay on; report completion, cost per form open and cost per lead split by what the form asks for.

Does a bigger audience mean cheaper leads?

No. Across 293 cold content campaigns from 7,000 to 960,000 people, the rank correlation between audience size and cost per lead is −0.03, and −0.13 inside the same account; completion is 10 to 14% at every size. Bigger audiences look cheaper in bucket tables because the advertisers who run them are cheaper advertisers. Bigger audiences do buy slightly cheaper impressions (ρ −0.10), which never reaches the lead.

Are senior leads more expensive on LinkedIn?

Directionally, the opposite. In the 14 accounts where LinkedIn reports spend by demographic, a C-suite lead inside the same campaign costs about a third less than the campaign average and converts at 8.4 leads per 10k impressions against 3.4 for a senior individual contributor. Targeting director and above also costs nothing extra (+17%, not significant). Both halves of "seniors are expensive" fail.

Should I use retargeting for lead gen forms?

It does not make them cheaper: −9% vs cold in the same account, cheaper in 34 of 65 (a tie). It fatigues worst of the three audience types (cost per lead index 173 by month five). Use it for the offer sequence, not for the price.

Should I upload a list for LinkedIn lead gen?

Only when the account list matters more than the lead count. A list costs 31% more per content lead than cold in the same account: 19% more per impression, 24% fewer leads per impression, same open rate and completion. Lists under 10,000 people are fully reached within weeks and need refreshing monthly. Lists are 42% of all lead gen form spend.

How much should I spend on LinkedIn lead gen?

Content: $25 to 50 a day gets a lead a week in half of months; at $10 to 25 a day the first lead arrives in 3 days. Demo: even at $100 to 250 a day only 46% of months get a lead a week, and below $50 a day it is under one in five; at $10 to 25 a day the first lead takes 12 days and 36% of campaigns never get one. 26% of campaign-months with $200 or more of spend produce nothing.

How much does LinkedIn lead gen cost per month?

The median lead gen advertiser spends $5,043 a year on the objective and gets 22 leads from it. Accounts under $1k a month pay $98 a content lead and $117 a demo lead, the cheapest band in the table; accounts over $25k a month pay $401 and $867, which is mix (US, demo, lists, small pools), not the auction. For content, small budgets work; for demo, the constraint is the daily budget, not the monthly one.

How long until a LinkedIn lead gen campaign gets its first lead?

Content at $10 to 25 a day: 3 days median, 77% by day 30. Demo at the same spend: 12 days, 51% by day 30. At $100 a day or more: 1 day content, 4 days demo. Across all spend levels the medians are 2 and 6 days. Only 4% of campaigns were switched off before the median time to first lead for their offer and budget.

Does the lead gen objective cost more per impression?

Yes: 40% more than website visits, 81% more than brand awareness, 31% more than website conversion, 58% more than video views, and the same as engagement, all in the same account and month. Feed CPM runs $46 in the cheapest decile of accounts, $87 in the middle 80% and $147 in the dearest decile.

What is the best day to run LinkedIn lead gen ads?

No day is better on lead rate. Sunday is the cheapest per lead (index 94); every weekday is 100. Weekends are 20% of delivery and there is no reason to pause them.

Is there seasonality in LinkedIn lead gen?

No. Within account, cost per lead sits between 96 and 103 every month of the year. CPM peaks in December at 116 and troughs in January at 97, and cost per lead does not follow it. Turning lead gen off in December saves nothing per lead.

When do LinkedIn lead gen forms fatigue?

Cost per lead rises 37% by month three (index 137), completion falls 22%, and CPM falls 9%, so CPM never warns you. By week, cost per lead is flat for four weeks, then 116, 120, 135, 128 in weeks five to eight. Lists fatigue fastest (146 by month three), retargeting worst (173 by month five). The refresh trigger is completion rate at week four.

Does LinkedIn lead gen work for MSPs and IT services?

IT services and IT consulting: 48 accounts in the panel, $83 a content lead, in the cheapest third of the industry table. The demo cell is under seven accounts and withheld; across the industries where it can be shown, a demo lead runs $144 to $722. The answer for an MSP is a content offer in a document ad, not a "book a call" form in the feed.

Does LinkedIn lead gen work for SaaS?

Software development: $81 a content lead, $459 a demo lead (17 / 7 accounts). Technology, information and internet: $102 and $386. Same pattern as everywhere: content in the feed, demo in the inbox.

Should I add a gift card incentive to a lead gen form?

8% of forms mention one. We could not detect an effect on completion or cost (10 accounts, not significant). Not a lever we can see on forms; Kiin's incentive results are in conversation ads, not forms.

LinkedIn lead gen forms vs Google Ads or Meta for B2B?

Not in this study: the panel is LinkedIn only. What we can say is what a LinkedIn lead costs by offer, so the comparison is yours to make against your own Google and Meta numbers, offer for offer.

How do I connect a LinkedIn lead gen form to HubSpot?

Through LinkedIn's native HubSpot integration in Campaign Manager, or via the CRM sync in Kiin Intelligence. The join from form submission to CRM contact is what v1.1 of this report, on lead quality, is built on.

Where does this data come from?

Kiin Intelligence, via the LinkedIn Marketing API: every lead-generation-objective campaign with delivery across connected accounts, 8 Sep 2025 to 7 Sep 2026 — 4,010 campaigns, 489 accounts, $13.6M, 86,051 leads, 4,875 forms read. Benchmarks are medians across accounts; every setting comparison is the same advertiser running both, paired within account, with bootstrap confidence intervals; no cell under seven accounts is shown. The full method is at the end of the report.