Facebook Ads Insights Tool

Facebook Ads Cost Per Purchase Benchmarks in Norway

See how your purchase costs compare. Explore ecommerce conversion cost benchmarks by industry, region, and campaign type

Cost Per Purchase in Norway

February 2025 - February 2026

Insights

Detailed observation of presented data

Introduction

Norway’s cost per purchase moved on a very different rhythm than the global benchmark—calmer worldwide, choppier and higher in Norway. The year’s defining moment was a dramatic spike in May, followed by a sharp reset, then a Q4 lift that culminated in a December surge before easing back in January. 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 Norway compared to the global benchmark.

The story in the data

Across the 13 months observed, Norway’s cost per purchase averaged about 125, versus a global average near 49.6. The outlier was May at 750.85—the peak of the period and a single-month shock that pushed the annual average higher. The trough landed in August at 19.99. The median month for Norway sat at 62.52, which better reflects typical conditions outside of the May spike.

The period opened at 118.33 in January 2025 and closed at 65.28 in January 2026—a 45% decline from start to finish. In between, the path was turbulent: a slide into March (29.74), a rebound in April (68.48), the May surge (750.85), then a snap back in June (34.42). After a soft August low, costs climbed into September (119.14), cooled in October (37.70), lifted in November (62.52), and spiked again in December (223.87) before normalizing in January 2026.

Volatility in Norway averaged roughly 175 points month to month—far above the market’s steadier 3.33. Even excluding the May shock, Norway’s average monthly swing was still about 70, underscoring a consistently more erratic pattern than the global baseline.

Seasonal and monthly dynamics

Seasonality showed up clearly. Q1 in Norway averaged around the low 60s, largely elevated by a strong January. Q2 was extreme due to May’s spike, but June reset to more typical levels. Q3 trended moderate (low 60s on average), punctuated by a September lift. Q4 accelerated, with a pronounced December peak at 223.87, aligning with the familiar end‑of‑year intensity that often raises country-specific ad costs. January 2026 then reset sharply lower, consistent with the broader pattern where performance typically softens after the holidays and engagement rebalances in early Q1.

Country vs. Global

Compared to Facebook Ads benchmarks globally, Norway was above market in 8 of 13 months. The gap was narrowest in July (+4% vs. global) and widest in May (about 14× global). Norway also dipped well below the market at times—most notably in August (−62%) and March (−44%). On average, Norway’s cost per purchase ran about 152% higher than the global mean; excluding May, it was still roughly 47% higher, and the median month in Norway stood 26% above the global average.

The global trend was steady through 2025 (hovering near 50) and then fell sharply in January 2026 to 25.15. Norway also fell into January but remained elevated at 65.28, leaving the selected market 159% above global at the end of the window.

Closing

Overall, Facebook Ads benchmarks for cost per purchase in all industries in Norway point to a higher and more volatile market than the global baseline, shaped by an exceptional May surge and a strong Q4. Understanding cost per purchase dynamics—alongside related CPC trends, CPM analysis, and CTR performance—helps frame industry ad performance in Norway against global 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 Norway, 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.

Norway Advertising Landscape

National Holidays

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

Key Shopping Season

Late November (Black Friday/Singles Day), December (Christmas & post‑Christmas sales), Spring holiday period (April–May travel and tourism)

Potential Advertising Impact

CPM and CPC could rise during Easter and Ascension when Norwegians travel or spend time on leisure. Constitution Day (May 17) is widely celebrated—media activity may increase and ad competition could intensify. Most public holidays result in shop closures; ad inventory may shrink during holidays. Pentecost weekend may reduce weekday competition.

What's a healthy cost per purchase for ecommerce brands?

It depends on your product price and margins. Most brands aim for $10 to $50. For higher-ticket products, a higher CPA may be acceptable as long as you're maintaining a strong return on ad spend.

How does product price impact CPA benchmarks?

Higher-priced products typically have a higher CPA because people take longer to convert. That's not necessarily a problem if your margin can support it. You should measure CPA in context with AOV and LTV.

Why are my purchase costs going up despite stable ROAS?

Your AOV may be increasing, which helps maintain ROAS even if CPA rises. You could also be facing higher CPMs, lower conversion rates, or creative fatigue.

Should I use manual bidding to control CPA more effectively?

Manual bidding can help if you're struggling to stay within target CPA. It's best used by experienced advertisers who can monitor performance and adjust regularly. It gives more control, but also requires more effort.

How do I scale spend without letting CPA skyrocket?

Increase budget gradually, rotate creative often, and avoid overlapping audiences. Scaling too quickly can lead to audience saturation and rising CPAs.