- B2B SaaS companies waste about a third of paid spend: 34.0% on Google Ads (104 accounts) and 32.0% on LinkedIn Ads (56 accounts).
- The best-run quarter of Google Ads accounts wastes 13.2%. The worst-run quarter wastes 49.8%. Same platform, same ad products.
- On Google the largest cause is broad match without negative keywords (31% of waste). On LinkedIn it is targeting job functions that never buy (30%).
- A 90-day fix cut Google Ads waste from 34.0% to 11.0% across the audited accounts. Most of the waste is recoverable.
B2B SaaS companies waste about a third of what they spend on paid ads. Two audits published in 2026 found an average waste rate of 34.0% across 104 Google Ads accounts and 32.0% across 56 LinkedIn Ads accounts. The spread is wide: the best-run Google Ads accounts waste 13.2% and the worst-run waste 49.8%.
Both audits come from GrowthSpree, an agency that analyzed accounts it had access to. That makes the numbers a useful benchmark for B2B SaaS, not a census. The limits are set out near the end of this page.
How much Google Ads spend do B2B SaaS companies waste?
The average B2B SaaS Google Ads account wastes 34.0% of its spend. That figure comes from The 2026 B2B SaaS Google Ads Waste Report (GrowthSpree, June 2026), which analyzed 104 accounts and $78.0M in spend over calendar year 2025. Total waste was $26.5M, or about $255K per account per year.
The report counts spend as wasted when it goes to search queries that never convert, or to form fills that never become a sales-qualified lead (SQL) within 90 days.
How well the account is run matters more than its size:
| Account group | Waste rate | What separates the group |
|---|---|---|
| Top quarter | 13.2% | Daily search-term audits, offline conversions live, click ID connected to the CRM |
| Second quarter | 28.4% | Partial setup, monthly reviews |
| Third quarter | 38.1% | Default attribution, Performance Max running without CRM data |
| Bottom quarter | 49.8% | Four or more root causes present at once |
The gap between the top and bottom quarter is 36.6 points on the same platform.
What causes the waste on Google Ads?
Seven causes account for all of it, and the top two account for more than half. Broad match without negative keywords is the largest at 31% of waste. Performance Max running without offline conversions is second at 25%.
| Rank | Cause | Waste | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Broad match without negative keywords | $8.2M | 31% |
| 2 | Performance Max without offline conversions | $6.6M | 25% |
| 3 | A 7-day click attribution window, which the report calls the default | $4.0M | 15% |
| 4 | No click ID (GCLID) connected to the CRM | $2.9M | 11% |
| 5 | Smart Bidding trained on form fills, not SQLs | $2.4M | 9% |
| 6 | Brand, competitor and generic campaigns mixed together | $1.3M | 5% |
| 7 | Location targeting that reaches irrelevant regions | $1.1M | 4% |
Five of the seven are measurement problems. The account cannot see which spend produces pipeline, so Google's automation optimizes toward the wrong signal. At the time of the audit, 91% of the accounts had no click ID reaching the CRM, and 89% measured on a 7-day click window. Google's documented default click-through conversion window is 30 days.
Two figures show the cost. Broad match took 47% of spend but produced 23% of SQLs. Performance Max cost $2,140 per SQL when it ran without offline conversions and $620 with them.
How much LinkedIn Ads spend is wasted, and why?
The average B2B SaaS LinkedIn Ads account wastes 32.0% of its spend. The State of Wasted LinkedIn Ads Spend in B2B SaaS (GrowthSpree, June 2026) analyzed 56 accounts and $9.4M in spend. Total waste was $3.0M, or about $53.6K per account. The range runs from 13.5% in the best-run quarter to 52.4% in the worst.
On LinkedIn the waste comes from targeting, not measurement. Three causes produce 67% of it:
| Rank | Cause | Waste | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Job functions that will not buy (Sales, HR, Accounting, Support) | $903K | 30% |
| 2 | Seniority mislabeling: "Senior" is mostly individual contributors | $662K | 22% |
| 3 | Company-size leakage into firms with under 50 employees | $452K | 15% |
| 4 | Dead or sub-scale campaigns | $331K | 11% |
| 5 | Untargeted boosted posts | $271K | 9% |
| 6 | Underfunded retargeting | $241K | 8% |
| 7 | Industry-targeting leakage | $151K | 5% |
Decision-makers received only 33% of budget in the audited accounts. The report sets 60% or more as the target.
Which B2B SaaS verticals and stages waste the most?
Broad categories waste more than narrow ones, and younger companies waste more than older ones. On Google Ads, AI/ML SaaS wastes the most because broad hype terms pull in students, job-seekers and researchers.
| Vertical (Google Ads) | Accounts | Average waste |
|---|---|---|
| AI/ML SaaS | 21 | 39.5% |
| Horizontal SaaS | 29 | 36.0% |
| Fintech SaaS | 17 | 33.0% |
| Healthcare SaaS | 13 | 31.5% |
| Vertical SaaS | 24 | 28.0% |
| Stage (Google Ads) | Accounts | Average waste |
|---|---|---|
| Series A ($1M to $10M ARR) | 16 | 42.0% |
| Series B ($10M to $30M ARR) | 34 | 38.0% |
| Series C ($30M to $50M ARR) | 39 | 33.5% |
| Growth equity (over $50M ARR) | 15 | 30.5% |
On LinkedIn, HR Tech wastes the most at 37%, followed by horizontal SaaS at 35%. The report's explanation is that HR Tech buyer titles overlap with the audiences LinkedIn's default targeting over-serves.
How much of the waste can be recovered?
On Google Ads, most of it. In that audit, a 90-day fix cut average waste from 34.0% to 11.0%, recovering about $17.9M of the $26.5M. Cost per SQL fell 62%. The report describes these as observed results across the dataset, not a guarantee for any single account.
The LinkedIn figure is a projection, not a result. The report models a drop from 32.0% to 11.8% and a rise in decision-maker budget share from 33% to 61%.
The steps are covered in how to reduce wasted ad spend in B2B SaaS Google Ads and how to cut wasted LinkedIn Ads spend.
How should these numbers be read?
As a benchmark for B2B SaaS accounts of a similar kind, not as a market-wide average. Four limits apply.
- The samples are not random. Both cover accounts the publisher audited, and the Google Ads report calls itself a convenience sample. In the Google Ads report, 88% of accounts are US-based.
- "Waste" is a judgment. It depends on where the line is drawn between a useful click and a useless one. Another analyst could draw it differently.
- The breakdowns overlap. Cause, quartile, vertical and stage are different views of the same total. They cannot be added together.
- The LinkedIn report states no calendar period for its data. The Google Ads report covers calendar year 2025.
FAQ
Is a 34% waste rate normal for Google Ads?
For B2B SaaS, yes. It is the average across 104 audited accounts in the 2026 report. An account near 13% is run about as well as the top quarter. An account near 50% likely has four or more of the seven causes active at once.
Do bigger ad budgets waste less?
Not because of size. The Google Ads report found waste falls with operating maturity, from 42.0% at Series A to 30.5% at growth stage. Older companies tend to have conversion tracking and CRM connections in place. Budget alone does not fix targeting or measurement.
Why does the waste go unnoticed?
The ad platform reports clicks and form fills, and both can look healthy while pipeline stays flat. In the Google Ads audit, 78% of form fills never reached SQL. Without CRM data flowing back, the account has no way to tell a buyer from a non-buyer.
Is Google Ads or LinkedIn Ads more wasteful for B2B SaaS?
They are close: 34.0% and 32.0% in the two 2026 audits. The causes differ. Google Ads waste comes mostly from missing measurement. LinkedIn Ads waste comes mostly from audience targeting. See Google Ads vs LinkedIn Ads for B2B SaaS.
What is a realistic waste rate to aim for?
About 11% to 13%. The best-run quarter of Google Ads accounts sits at 13.2%, and the audited accounts averaged 11.0% after a 90-day fix. Zero is not realistic, because some exploratory spend is always needed to find new queries and audiences.
Conclusion
About a third of B2B SaaS paid spend produces nothing, and the share is similar on Google Ads and LinkedIn Ads. The causes are few and well understood: missing negatives and missing CRM data on Google, loose audiences on LinkedIn. The gap between a 13% account and a 50% account is how the account is run. On Google Ads a fix has been shown to remove most of the waste. On LinkedIn the same is projected.
Sources
- The 2026 B2B SaaS Google Ads Waste Report: An Audit of 104 Accounts and $78.0M in Spend. GrowthSpree, June 2026.
- The State of Wasted LinkedIn Ads Spend in B2B SaaS: An Audit of 56 Accounts and $9.4M in Spend. GrowthSpree, June 2026.
Talk your ad account through with a paid media expert
A free consultation. Bring your questions on spend, targeting or tracking and brainstorm the next step.