Facebook Ads Insights Tool

Facebook Ads Cost Per Lead Benchmarks in Denmark

See how your CPL compares. Explore lead generation cost benchmarks by industry, region, and campaign type

Cost Per Lead in Denmark

November 2024 - November 2025

Insights

Detailed observation of presented data

Introduction

Denmark’s cost‑per‑lead story over the past year reads as a study in contrasts: brief stretches of efficiency punctuated by explosive spikes. Across the observed months, Denmark’s all‑industry Facebook Ads cost per lead (CPL) averaged about 210, roughly five times the global benchmark near 41. While the global curve moved in a tight band, Denmark swung from a January low of 19 to a July peak above 1,080 before easing back into autumn. Seasonality still shows through—softer costs in early Q1 and firmer levels into late summer—but with far greater amplitude than the market.

This analysis is based on $3B worth of advertising data from our dataset, which provides strong directional benchmarks. This analysis explores ad performance trends for all industries in Denmark compared to the global benchmark.

Section 1: The story in the data

Denmark’s CPL opened at 203 in November 2024 and closed at 118 by October 2025, a net decline of about 42%. The year’s high was July (1,080), and the low was January (19). The nine reported months averaged 210 with a median of 118—underscoring how a single summer surge skewed the mean upward.

The monthly rhythm shows distinct phases:

  • A steep drop from November to December (203 → 26), then to January (19), marking the most efficient period.
  • A climb through February (41) and a sharp step‑up in March (159), followed by an elevated June (146).
  • A dramatic spike in July (1,080) and a swift normalization by September (95) and October (118).

Volatility was pronounced. The average absolute change between reported points was roughly 285; excluding the June–July spike and the subsequent cooldown, swings still averaged about 60. By contrast, the global benchmark shifted an average of only 3.2 points month‑to‑month—evidence that Denmark’s CPL was far more turbulent than the market.

Section 2: Seasonal and monthly dynamics

Seasonality is visible but amplified. Q4 typically tightens competition and pushes costs higher; Denmark reflected that in November’s elevated CPL, though December bucked the pattern with a sharp pullback. Efficiency peaked in January, then costs rebuilt into March. After limited spring visibility, June arrived elevated, followed by an extraordinary July surge—a hallmark of peak‑season pressure. With August not reported, the corridor from July to September shows a rapid cooldown, and autumn stabilized in a mid‑to‑high band (95–118).

Section 3: Denmark vs. Global

Relative to Facebook Ads benchmarks worldwide, Denmark oscillated from below‑market to far above it:

  • Below global in December (−34%) and January (−46%), near parity in February (+3%).
  • Significantly above market from March onward: March (+378%), June (+255%), September (+97%), October (+162%).
  • Widest gap in July: Denmark’s CPL was about 25.5× the global level (+2,450%).

On average across overlapping months, Denmark’s CPL was about 5.1× the global benchmark. The global trend rose steadily from November to October (+9%) within a narrow range (33–48), while Denmark’s trajectory was markedly choppier (19–1,081).

Closing

For country‑specific ad costs, Denmark’s all‑industry CPL shows a volatile year: an efficient Q1, an intense mid‑year surge, and a moderated but still elevated finish versus the global market. Understanding Facebook Ads benchmarks for cost‑per‑lead—and how Denmark’s industry ad performance compares to global CPL, CPC trends, CPM analysis, and CTR performance—helps contextualize acquisition costs for all industries in Denmark against broader market patterns.

Understanding the Data

Insights & analysis of Facebook advertising costs

Facebook advertising costs vary based on many factors including industry, target audience, ad placement, and campaign objectives. Different industries see varying ad costs due to market competition, user demographics, and conversion value. For campaigns targeting Denmark, advertisers should consider local market factors and user behavior. Different campaign objectives lead to varying costs based on how Facebook optimizes for your specific goals. The data shown represents median values across multiple campaigns, and individual results may vary based on ad quality, audience targeting, and campaign optimization.

Why we use median instead of average

We use the median CTR because the underlying distribution of click-through rates is highly skewed, with a small share of campaigns achieving extremely high CTRs. These outliers can inflate a simple average, making it less representative of what most advertisers actually experience. By using the median—which sits at the midpoint of all campaigns—we provide a more rigorous and realistic benchmark that reflects the true underlying data model and helps you set attainable performance expectations.

Key Factors Affecting Facebook Ad Costs

  • Competition within your selected industry and audience demographics
  • Ad quality and relevance score – higher quality ads can lower costs
  • Campaign objective and bid strategy
  • Timing and seasonality – costs often increase during holiday periods
  • Ad placement (News Feed, Instagram, Audience Network, etc.)

Note: This data represents industry median values and benchmarks. Your actual costs may vary based on specific targeting, ad creative quality, and campaign optimization.

Optimize Smarter with Superads

Improve your Facebook ad performance

Instant performance insights – See which ads, audiences, and creatives drive results.

Data-driven creative decisions – Spot patterns to improve ROAS.

Effortless reporting – No spreadsheets, just clear insights.

Get Started for free →

The data behind the benchmarks

All data is sourced from over $3B in Facebook ad spend, collected across thousands of ad accounts that use Superads daily to analyze and improve their campaigns. Every data point is fully anonymized and aggregated—no individual advertiser is ever exposed.

This dataset updates frequently as new ad data flows in. It will only get bigger and better.

Denmark Advertising Landscape

National Holidays

Jan 1New Year's Day
Apr 17Maundy Thursday
Apr 18Good Friday
Apr 20Easter Sunday
Apr 21Easter Monday
May 29Ascension Day
Jun 8Whit Sunday
Jun 9Whit Monday
Dec 25Christmas Day
Dec 26Second Day of Christmas

Key Shopping Season

Christmas & Boxing Day (late Dec), Easter holidays (groceries, travel, tourism), Mother's Day and Valentine's Day

Potential Advertising Impact

CPM and CPC could rise during Easter period due to travel-related campaigns. Late December ad competition might intensify in retail and hospitality. Whit Weekend might reduce weekday competition. Strict retail closures on holidays could drop competition, but pre-holiday CPMs may escalate.

What is considered a good cost per lead on Facebook in 2025?

A good CPL usually ranges from $10 to $50, depending on your industry and target audience. B2C offers tend to be cheaper, while B2B or high-ticket services may see CPLs over $100.

Why is my CPL higher than industry averages?

Your CPL could be high due to weak creative, irrelevant targeting, or an offer that doesn't resonate. Low engagement or poor conversion rates on your landing page can also drive up costs.

Does campaign objective impact CPL?

Yes. Campaigns optimized for conversions or leads tend to generate cheaper and more qualified leads compared to traffic or engagement objectives. Facebook needs clear signals to find the right users.

How can I generate leads at a lower cost without hurting lead quality?

Focus on improving your offer, targeting the right audience, and using high-converting creative. Test native lead forms, but make sure you're still qualifying users properly.

Should I optimize for leads or conversions if my goal is pipeline growth?

If your goal is sales or revenue, optimizing for deeper funnel conversions is better. Optimizing for leads alone can inflate volume but hurt quality.