See how your CPL compares. Explore lead generation cost benchmarks by industry, region, and campaign type
February 2025 - February 2026
Detailed observation of presented data
Across all countries, Wine and Spirits lead-generation costs moved through an unusually dramatic arc in 2025, starting extremely elevated before collapsing mid-year and then oscillating into Q4. Compared to the global benchmark, this category ran hotter early, cheaper late, and far more volatile throughout. 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 Wine and Spirits across all countries compared to the global benchmark.
The year opened at a peak: January’s cost per lead (CPL) hit 389.66, more than 11 times the global median of 35.04. From there, costs fell sharply—152.59 in February, then sub‑100 by March—before bottoming at just 10.50 in June. The back half of the year never revisited January’s extremes. August briefly rebounded to 93.94, September eased to 38.16, and Q4 settled low: 22.02 in October, 46.74 in November, and 13.12 in December.
For Wine and Spirits across all countries, the 2025 average CPL landed at 90.68, with a high of 389.66 (January) and a low of 10.50 (June). The typical month sat around a median of roughly 70.34. By contrast, the global benchmark averaged 41.53, ranged narrowly from 33.43 (March) to 48.83 (October), and drifted upward into Q4.
Volatility was the defining feature. Wine and Spirits saw average month‑to‑month absolute moves of about 55 points, versus just 3 for the global benchmark—nearly 18x more volatile. The range told the same story: a 379‑point spread for Wine and Spirits compared to a 15‑point spread globally.
H1 was a tale of two halves: the first five months were elevated (96–389), then June collapsed to the yearly low. H1 averaged 142, while H2 averaged 39—an inversion of the usual pattern where CPLs rise into year‑end. Q3 brought a partial rebound (average 51), powered by August’s lift, before Q4 softened again (average 27), with December nearly as low as June.
Global seasonality looked steadier and more conventional: costs gently climbed through the year, with Q4 (46) slightly above Q3 (44). In other words, while many categories experienced firmer competition and rising CPLs in late Q3–Q4, Wine and Spirits across all countries moved in the opposite direction.
Against the global benchmark, Wine and Spirits averaged 118% higher CPLs over the full year (90.68 vs. 41.53), but that premium was front‑loaded. January–May ran 2.6x to 11x above market. June flipped to 75% below global. July, September, October, November, and December mostly stayed below or near parity: July (−46%), September (−21%), October (−55%), November (−3%), December (−69%). The gap was widest in January (over 1,000% above global) and narrowest in November (just 3% below). The global trend rose steadily (+21% from January to December), while Wine and Spirits fell sharply (−97% from January to December), underscoring how category dynamics diverged from the broader market.
Taken together, these Facebook Ads benchmarks highlight a year of extremes for cost per lead in Wine and Spirits across all countries: a soaring start, a mid‑year crash, and a low‑cost Q4, all with volatility far above the global norm. Understanding cost per lead benchmarks for Wine and Spirits across all countries helps marketers gauge industry ad performance against broader CPL trends, CPM analysis context, and CTR performance patterns in the global benchmark.
Insights & analysis of Facebook advertising costs
Facebook advertising costs vary based on many factors including industry, target audience, ad placement, and campaign objectives. In the Wine and Spirits industry, Facebook ad costs can be influenced by seasonal trends and market competition. Geographic targeting affects ad costs based on market competition and user engagement in different regions. 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.
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.
Note: This data represents industry median values and benchmarks. Your actual costs may vary based on specific targeting, ad creative quality, and campaign optimization.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If your goal is sales or revenue, optimizing for deeper funnel conversions is better. Optimizing for leads alone can inflate volume but hurt quality.
Discover detailed cost benchmarks for different Facebook advertising metrics:
Average cost per click benchmarks across industries
Cost per thousand impressions across different markets
Benchmark click-through rates for Facebook ads
Cost per lead across different markets
Average cost per purchase benchmarks across industries
See how much it costs to get users to install an app