The short answer
0.24%. That is the median landing page click through rate across the panel, and it is the number to judge yourself against.
If you run conversion-objective campaigns, the median rises to 0.45%. If you run brand awareness, it falls to 0.09%. Those are not small differences. The objective you picked at setup moves your click rate by five times, and no amount of creative testing closes that gap.
Anything above 0.30% is genuinely good. Anything below 0.15% is a structural problem rather than a creative one, and the fix is almost never a new headline.
Every figure here comes from our own panel: 1,000+ advertiser accounts, 22,942 campaigns and $79 million of measured LinkedIn spend across 1.34 billion impressions in the twelve months to 7 September 2026. Medians across advertiser accounts, never pooled totals. LinkedIn Audience Network delivery excluded.
The benchmark everyone quotes is the wrong click
Here is why your dashboard disagrees with every article you have read.
LinkedIn has two click fields. The default one, labelled simply clicks, counts likes, comments, shares, company page visits and landing page clicks together. The other one, landing page clicks, counts people who actually arrived on your website.
Almost every published LinkedIn CTR benchmark uses the first field. It produces a bigger, friendlier number. It also counts somebody tapping your logo as traffic.
On feed formats the two can differ by several multiples. An advertiser celebrating a 0.9% CTR is often looking at a 0.2% landing page CTR with social engagement stacked on top. Both numbers are real. Only one of them can be sold to.
So before comparing yourself to anything, check which field you are reading. If a benchmark does not say, assume it is the inflated one.
It depends more on your objective than your creative
Measured on single-market campaigns so the comparison is clean, conversion campaigns deliver a 0.45% landing page CTR and cost $10.26 a click. Website visit campaigns deliver 0.33% at $10.03. Engagement campaigns drop to 0.21% at $18.18. Brand awareness manages 0.09% at $53.03. Video views sits at 0.05% and $82.48.
Read that again. Brand awareness costs five times what website visits cost for the same landing page click, and produces a click rate a third as high.
Both objectives belong in a funnel. Neither brand awareness nor video views is a traffic objective, and the accounts we audit use them as one constantly. If your CTR is disappointing, the first thing to check is not the ad. It is whether you asked LinkedIn for clicks at all.
And on the market you buy in
The United Kingdom has the best landing page CTR of any major market at 0.25%, marginally ahead of the United States at 0.23% and well ahead of Germany at 0.09%.
That last figure is worth sitting with. A German campaign producing 0.10% is performing at the market median. The same number in the UK would be bottom quartile. Judging a DACH programme against a US benchmark will make a competent campaign look broken.
The US also costs more than twice the UK per landing page click, $46.98 against $20.69, on 322 and 89 advertiser accounts respectively. British buyers are not harder to move. They are cheaper to reach.
What a bad number actually looks like
A low CTR is a symptom. It has three common causes and they are easy to tell apart.
If the rate started acceptable and declined, it is fatigue, and fatigue tracks cumulative frequency rather than elapsed time. Engagement falls to 91 at one full pass of your audience and 78 at five, indexed to launch. Small audiences burn through that fast. Check frequency at account level across every campaign hitting the same people, not campaign by campaign, because the per-campaign report understates true frequency by roughly 2.7 times at ninety days.
If the rate was never good, it is usually the objective, and the fix is above.
If the rate is fine but nothing converts, CTR was never your problem. Across 119 accounts where we measured the whole path from impression to booked meeting, the spread between best and worst was 121 times. Traffic price explained 1.5 times of it. Landing page and form conversion explained 72 times.
What to do if yours is below the median
Change the objective before you change the creative. Conversions or website visits, not engagement or brand awareness, if traffic is what you want.
Switch your reporting column to landing page clicks. You cannot improve a number you are not looking at.
Check frequency across the account, not the campaign, and refresh creative on impressions delivered rather than on a calendar.
Then stop optimising CTR. It is the cheapest metric to improve and the least connected to pipeline. A campaign at 0.20% with a landing page that converts will beat a campaign at 0.45% that sends people to a homepage, every time, by a margin the click rate will never show you.
Related questions
What is the average CTR on LinkedIn Ads?
0.24% landing page CTR at the median across 1,000+ advertiser accounts. If a benchmark quotes something near 0.9%, it is almost certainly using LinkedIn's default clicks field, which counts social engagement alongside landing page clicks.
Is 1% a good CTR on LinkedIn?
On the default clicks field, 1% is good but not exceptional. On landing page clicks it would be outstanding, roughly four times the median. The difference matters, so establish which field is being measured before celebrating.
Why is my LinkedIn CTR so low?
Usually the campaign objective. Brand awareness campaigns deliver 0.09% landing page CTR against 0.45% on conversion campaigns. After that, check cumulative frequency at account level, then check whether the audience is too small to sustain the spend.
Does a higher CTR mean better results?
No. Across 119 accounts, conversion rate explained 72 times more of the variance in cost per booked meeting than traffic price did. A high CTR with a weak landing page is an expensive way to be ignored.