Google Ads vs Bing Ads for B2B
Most B2B advertisers treat Google Ads as the only search channel and ignore Microsoft Ads (formerly Bing Ads) entirely. That is usually a mistake. Google has far more reach, but Microsoft Ads reaches a B2B-skewed, often older and higher-income desktop audience at lower cost per click, plus it offers LinkedIn-based targeting Google cannot match. For B2B, the real answer is rarely either-or. This compares them on reach, audience, cost, and targeting.
Reach and Search Volume
Winston Francois: Google Ads has dominant search market share, so it offers far more volume and the ability to scale spend against high-intent B2B keywords that simply have more searches.
Competitor: Microsoft Ads has much smaller search share, which caps total volume, but that audience is concentrated on Windows desktops and Office-ecosystem users that skew toward business contexts.
Verdict: For scale and volume, Google is unavoidable as the primary channel. Microsoft Ads cannot replace it, but its smaller, business-skewed audience is additive rather than redundant.
Audience Composition
Winston Francois: Google reaches everyone, which is powerful for scale but means more competition and a broader, less business-concentrated audience on any given B2B keyword.
Competitor: Microsoft Ads skews toward an older, higher-income, desktop-and-Office audience that over-indexes on business decision-makers, which can make B2B traffic surprisingly qualified.
Verdict: If audience quality per click matters and you want to reach business buyers efficiently, Microsoft Ads often punches above its size for B2B. Google delivers the volume but with a broader mix.
Cost Per Click and Competition
Winston Francois: Google's auction is more competitive on valuable B2B keywords, which pushes cost per click higher, though its scale and conversion data can still produce strong returns.
Competitor: Microsoft Ads typically has lower competition and lower cost per click on the same keywords, so B2B advertisers often see cheaper qualified clicks and better efficiency on a smaller budget slice.
Verdict: For efficiency on a budget, Microsoft Ads frequently delivers cheaper B2B clicks. For maximum reach even at higher cost, Google is the volume engine – which is why splitting budget across both usually beats concentrating in one.
Targeting Capabilities
Winston Francois: Google offers powerful intent, audience, and in-market targeting backed by enormous data, and integrates tightly with the broader Google ecosystem and Analytics.
Competitor: Microsoft Ads offers LinkedIn profile targeting – company, industry, and job function – which is uniquely valuable for B2B and not available natively in Google Ads.
Verdict: For B2B specifically, Microsoft Ads' LinkedIn targeting is a genuine differentiator that Google cannot match, while Google's data depth and ecosystem integration remain the broader strength. The targeting edge alone justifies testing Microsoft Ads for B2B.
Which Is Right for You?
Run Google Ads as your primary search channel if you need scale, volume, and the ability to put real budget behind high-intent B2B keywords – it is non-negotiable for most B2B programs. Add Microsoft Ads if you want cheaper qualified clicks, a business-skewed audience, and LinkedIn-based company and job-function targeting that Google cannot offer. For most B2B advertisers the right move is not to choose but to run both, with Google as the volume engine and Microsoft Ads as an efficiency-and-targeting layer that often delivers strong incremental return on a modest budget. The mistake is ignoring Microsoft Ads entirely because it is smaller – for B2B, its audience quality and LinkedIn targeting make it worth a test it rarely gets.
Book a Strategy Call
Expand your marketing team output with our experts
Let us take a custom approach to your growth goals by assembling and leading the best-in-class marketing team to support your next stage.
Frequently asked questions
Should B2B companies run both Google Ads and Microsoft Ads?
For most B2B advertisers, yes. Google provides the volume and scale you cannot get elsewhere, while Microsoft Ads adds cheaper qualified clicks and LinkedIn-based targeting that Google lacks. Because campaigns can often be imported from Google into Microsoft Ads, testing the second channel is low effort relative to the incremental pipeline it can produce. Start with a 70/30 budget split, Google favored. Your cost per click typically drops 30 to 50 percent on Microsoft, though conversion rates vary. The Microsoft audience is different – more IT buyers, finance leads, and engineers actively engage there through LinkedIn placements. Search volume on identical keywords differs significantly; a 100-click monthly term on Google might see 15 to 20 on Microsoft. That's why you test: you're accessing a different buyer pool. Allocate 10 to 15 percent of your ads budget to Microsoft and run for 60 days minimum. This gives enough data to judge whether incremental leads justify overhead. If your cost per qualified lead drops below your Google benchmark, scaling is straightforward. If not, you've validated staying Google-only without resource waste.
Why is Microsoft Ads sometimes better for B2B than Google?
Microsoft Ads reaches an audience that skews older, higher-income, and concentrated on Windows desktops and the Office ecosystem, which over-indexes on business decision-makers. It also offers LinkedIn profile targeting by company, industry, and job function – a capability Google does not have natively. Combined with lower competition and cost per click, that makes it surprisingly effective for B2B even though it is smaller.
Is Microsoft Ads cheaper than Google Ads for B2B?
Generally yes on a cost-per-click basis, because there is less advertiser competition in the Microsoft auction for the same keywords. That lower cost, paired with a business-skewed audience, often makes Microsoft Ads more efficient for qualified B2B clicks. It will not match Google's volume, but it can deliver better cost efficiency on the budget you allocate to it.
