Comparison
Google Ads vs Microsoft Advertising
Decide from your own analytics, not from the cheaper-clicks claim.
Run Google Ads first, because that is where the volume is. Add Microsoft Advertising only when two conditions hold: Google is capped by impression share rather than budget, and your own analytics already show a real audience on the other network.
The difference
How should you decide between Google Ads and Microsoft Advertising?
From your own analytics rather than a cheaper-clicks claim. Segment existing traffic by browser and device and see whether that segment converts.
The argument for Microsoft is almost always presented as cheaper clicks. That is usually true and it is the least useful reason to decide, because a cheaper click on an audience that does not buy from you is not cheaper at all.
You already have the evidence you need. Segment your existing organic and direct traffic by browser and by device, and look at whether a meaningful share arrives on Edge or on desktop Windows, and whether that segment converts at a rate worth buying more of.
If that segment is negligible, the cheaper clicks are irrelevant. If it converts at or above your site average, you have a real reason specific to your business rather than one borrowed from an article.
The second question is whether Google is capped. If your Google programme is still losing impression share to budget on terms that already work, the next pound is almost always better spent there. Adding a second network to an uncapped account splits attention and conversion data for no gain.
Side by side
What does each network actually give you?
Google gives volume and depth of product. Microsoft gives a less contested auction, an older desktop audience, and LinkedIn profile targeting.
Google Ads
Almost every advertiser, first, because it is where the search volume is.
Strengths
- By far the largest available search volume, which is the thing you cannot buy anywhere else.
- The deepest product set: Performance Max, Shopping, broad automation, mature reporting.
- Enough conversion volume in one place for automated bidding to learn properly.
- Every tool, integration and guide targets it first.
Weaknesses
- The most contested auction, so clicks cost more.
- Automation removes levers, and Performance Max in particular hides where spend went.
- Impression share on genuinely good terms can cap what you are able to buy.
Microsoft Advertising
Advertisers whose analytics already show meaningful traffic from an older, more desktop, often more corporate audience.
Strengths
- A less contested auction, so the same query often clears at a lower cost per click.
- An audience skewing older and more desktop, which suits considered and higher-value purchases.
- Corporate machines where Edge and Bing are frequently the managed default.
- LinkedIn profile targeting on search campaigns, which has no Google equivalent and is genuinely useful for business-to-business.
Weaknesses
- Volume is a fraction of Google's, so it supplements rather than replaces.
- On low-volume accounts, splitting a thin conversion count across two networks can leave both unable to optimise.
- An unmodified import from Google reliably underperforms a campaign set allowed to diverge.
| Criterion | Google Ads | Microsoft Advertising |
|---|---|---|
| Available search volume | Largest by a wide margin | A fraction of Google's |
| Cost per click | Higher, more contested | Often lower |
| Audience skew | Broadest, all devices | Older, more desktop, more corporate |
| Business-to-business targeting | No profile targeting on search | LinkedIn profile targeting available |
| Product depth | Deepest, most automated | Narrower, more manual control |
| Right order to adopt | First, always | Second, and only on evidence |
Deciding
When is it worth running both?
Only when Google is capped by impression share rather than budget, and your analytics show a real audience on the second network worth buying.
Is Google capped by rank or by budget?
Lost impression share to budget means unspent demand on Google. Lost to rank means you are being outbid. Only the first argues for spending more on Google before looking elsewhere, and the two are frequently confused.
Does your analytics show the audience?
Segment by browser and device. A negligible Edge and desktop Windows segment settles it, and no amount of cheaper clicks changes that.
Do you have conversion volume to spare?
Automated bidding needs conversions to learn from. Splitting an already thin count across two networks can leave both unable to optimise, which is worse than one network running well.
Do you sell to businesses?
LinkedIn profile targeting on Microsoft search campaigns has no Google equivalent. If you sell to specific job functions or company sizes, that single feature can justify the network on its own.
The verdict
So which should you run?
Google first, always. Microsoft second and only on evidence, because splitting a thin conversion count can leave both networks unable to optimise.
Run Google first and get it right before considering anything else. It has the volume, and an account that has not yet exhausted its own good terms has no business splitting attention.
Add Microsoft when both conditions hold: Google is capped by impression share rather than budget, and your analytics show a real audience on the other network. If only one holds, the answer is usually not yet.
If you do add it, import from Google to launch and then let the two diverge. Re-check match types, rebuild negatives from Microsoft's own search terms report rather than inheriting Google's, reset bid strategies to match the lower conversion volume, and verify conversion tracking separately. A Microsoft account that still mirrors Google after six months has not been managed.
When we are the wrong choice
We are the wrong choice if you only run Google Ads at modest spend with tracking that already works. That is a freelancer's job and a freelancer will do it for less. We would also tell you not to add Microsoft at all if your analytics do not show the audience, which is often, and that advice reduces the scope we would manage.
Related services:PPC management servicesGoogle Ads management
Questions
What else do people ask about Microsoft Advertising?
Whether importing from Google is enough, whether clicks really are cheaper, and how the two networks differ for business-to-business advertisers.
Can we just import our Google campaigns and leave them?
As a starting point the import tool is the right way to launch. As a finished state it is not. Match type behaviour, audience sizes and competitive dynamics differ enough that an unmodified import consistently underperforms a campaign set that has been allowed to diverge.
Are Microsoft clicks really cheaper?
Usually, because the auction is less contested. Whether that is useful depends entirely on whether your buyers are there. A cheaper click on the wrong audience costs more per customer, not less.
Is Microsoft better for business-to-business?
Often, and for one specific reason: LinkedIn profile targeting on search campaigns lets you layer job function, industry and company size onto a search query. Google has no equivalent. If you sell to a defined professional audience, that feature alone can justify the network.
Will running both dilute our results?
It can, and this is the risk most articles skip. Automated bidding learns from conversion volume, so splitting a small count across two networks can leave both below the threshold where they optimise well. Above a healthy volume the risk largely disappears.
How do we know if it worked?
Judge it on incremental conversions at an acceptable cost, not on the cost per click being lower, and reconcile both networks against one conversion definition. Two networks counting conversions differently cannot be compared or added, which is the most common measurement failure in multi-network accounts.
Related comparisons
PPC freelancer vs agency
Most of the pages answering this are written by agencies. Here is the version that is not.
Still not sure which fits?
Tell us what you are running and what you are choosing between. We will tell you which way we would go and why, including when the answer is not us.