Facebook vs Instagram Ads: CPM, CTR and CPC Benchmarks from 48 DTC Brands (2026)
Across 48 DTC brands between 8 June and 13 July 2026, the median brand paid a CPM of $31.15 on Instagram and $20.30 on Facebook (53% higher), a link CTR of 1.78% against 1.49% and a link CPC of $1.93 against $1.48. Facebook took 69% of spend, Instagram 30%. No other window has placement data, and purchases cannot be split by placement, so there is no CPA, ROAS or conversion rate by placement. Source: MHI Meta Benchmarks, DTC, October 2026 edition, read from MHI Media's warehouse of client Meta ad accounts on 29 October 2026, data settled to 28 October 2026.
The figures on this page are medians across the Meta ad accounts of 48 DTC brands, read from MHI Media's warehouse of client ad accounts on 29 October 2026, data settled to 28 October 2026. Facebook and Instagram only. A brand is one client with all of its Meta ad accounts added together, included if it spent at least £3,000 in the placement report between 8 June and 13 July 2026; a placement cell needs 50,000 impressions and 200 link clicks. Each metric is a ratio of sums for one brand, each brand counts once, and the tables show the median brand with the interquartile range (25th to 75th percentile), plus a spend-weighted figure where no single brand is over half of the cell's spend. USD at £1 = $1.3289 (multiply by 0.7525 for GBP). Full method: the methodology on the benchmarks hub.
Placement data exists for 8 June to 13 July 2026 only, the only 36 days with a usable placement report, so this is a five-week summer snapshot. Purchases in that report carry no placement, so there is no CPA, ROAS or conversion rate by placement. Elsewhere in the dataset, CPA, ROAS, spend and purchases run to 28 October 2026; CTR, CPM, CPC and conversion rate cover 8 January to 7 September 2026 only; frequency covers the period to 3 August 2026 only. Blended or lifetime revenue, profit, repeat purchase and channels outside Meta are not measured.
Facebook vs Instagram CPM, CTR and CPC across 48 DTC brands
Instagram cost $31.15 per thousand impressions against Facebook's $20.30 at the median across 48 DTC brands between 8 June and 13 July 2026; its higher link CTR (1.78% against 1.49%) closed only part of that gap, so the Instagram click cost $1.93 against $1.48.
| Placement | Share of spend | CTR (link): median (IQR) | CPM: median (IQR) | CPM: spend-weighted | CPC (link): median (IQR) | n |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 69% | 1.49% (1.15% to 2.35%) | $20.30 ($13.23 to $32.39) | $17.62 | $1.48 ($0.97 to $1.95) | 48 | |
| 30% | 1.78% (1.33% to 2.57%) | $31.15 ($18.24 to $52.94) | $20.19 | $1.93 ($1.23 to $2.55) | 48 | |
| Other (Audience Network, Messenger, Threads, WhatsApp) | 1% | 3.88% (1.37% to 6.54%) | $14.55 ($10.48 to $19.32) | $12.80 | $0.35 ($0.25 to $0.52) | 28 |
Source: MHI Meta Benchmarks, DTC, October 2026 edition (benchmark cuts, 29 October 2026).
In GBP at the table rate, the median CPMs are £15.15 on Facebook and £23.24 on Instagram. Spend-weighted link CTR was 1.15%, 1.23% and 4.20% in the same order as the table; spend-weighted link CPC $1.53, $1.64 and $0.30.
Here's how I read it. Instagram charges 53% more for the thousand, gets a slightly better click rate, and still costs more per click. The spend-weighted CPMs sit closer together, $17.62 and $20.19, so the biggest spenders buy cheaper on both. The other placements are 1% of spend at $0.35 a click, and this data cannot tell me whether any of those clicks bought anything.
How much of a DTC brand's Meta spend goes to Instagram
The median DTC brand put 32.6% of its placement-report spend on Instagram between 8 June and 13 July 2026, with the middle half of the 48 brands between 21.6% and 56.0%; the median fashion brand put 76.3% there and the median beauty brand 26.3%.
| Group | n | 25th percentile | Median | 75th percentile | Pooled share |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All brands | 48 | 21.6% | 32.6% | 56.0% | 39.7% |
| Beauty and skincare | 8 | 22.7% | 26.3% | 32.2% | 27.6% |
| Fashion | 11 | 51.6% | 76.3% | 84.3% | 68.1% |
Source: MHI Meta Benchmarks, DTC, October 2026 edition (benchmark cuts, 29 October 2026).
Two numbers describe this split and they are different measures. The 30% in Table I1 is Instagram's share of the pooled spend of the qualifying brands. The pooled column here, 39.7%, weights every brand in the placement report, including spend that falls under the cell rule, and the median column is the typical brand. I'd use Table I1's 69% and 30% for the market split and this table to see where your own account sits. Above 56.0% puts you in the top quarter of these 48 brands, and unless you sell fashion that is unusual.
Facebook vs Instagram in beauty and fashion
Fashion brands put 71% of pooled spend on Instagram and paid $36.18 per thousand there against $19.46 on Facebook (11 brands), while beauty and skincare brands put 73% on Facebook and paid the highest Instagram CPM of any group, $47.64 (8 brands), all between 8 June and 13 July 2026. The beauty rows repeat Table C3 on the benchmarks hub (same 8 brands, same window); the fashion rows are new.
| Vertical | Placement | Share of spend | CTR (link): median (IQR) | CPM: median (IQR) | CPM: spend-weighted | CPC (link): median (IQR) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beauty and skincare | 73% | 1.85% (1.02% to 2.46%) | $33.22 ($20.33 to $46.73) | $42.65 | $1.80 ($1.63 to $1.97) | |
| Beauty and skincare | 27% | 2.59% (1.15% to 2.98%) | $47.64 ($29.11 to $60.50) | $51.30 | $2.02 ($1.87 to $2.31) | |
| Fashion | 28% | 1.36% (1.24% to 1.96%) | $19.46 ($12.98 to $24.87) | withheld | $0.97 ($0.80 to $2.04) | |
| Fashion | 71% | 1.73% (1.49% to 1.96%) | $36.18 ($14.76 to $46.71) | $17.12 | $1.90 ($1.03 to $2.73) | |
| Health and wellness (other) | not reported (fewer than 8 brands) | |||||
| Supplements | not reported (fewer than 8 brands) | |||||
Source: MHI Meta Benchmarks, DTC, October 2026 edition (benchmark cuts, 29 October 2026).
Fashion is the one I'd pull out. The median fashion brand lives on Instagram, pays close to double the Facebook rate for the thousand, and gets much the same click rate for it, 1.73% against 1.36%. That is the dearest placement mix in this data, chosen because these brands want to be seen on Instagram. Beauty leans the other way, 73% Facebook, and still pays $47.64 a thousand on Instagram. Neither row says which platform sold more; the fashion benchmarks and beauty and skincare benchmarks pages carry CPA and ROAS over longer windows.
What this means for your account
Nothing on this page says which placement sells; it says what attention cost on each over five weeks of summer 2026. The dearer platform had the higher link CTR in every group and the click still cost more; purchases cannot be split by placement, so that is as far as the evidence goes. Here is what I would do with it.
- If you run Advantage+ placements, Meta's automatic setting, the auction already pushes budget toward the cheaper result, which is how 48 brands ended up with 69% of spend on Facebook. The CPM gap needs no action from you.
- If you restricted ad sets to Instagram by hand, you pay the premium on every thousand: $31.15 against $20.30 at the all-brand median, $36.18 against $19.46 in fashion. If your Instagram share sits above the 75th percentile (56.0% for all brands, 84.3% in fashion) by choice, run one campaign on Advantage+ placements for four weeks and read cost per purchase by platform first; the placement guide covers that breakdown, and it is where our Instagram ads team starts.
- If your Instagram CPM sits above $52.94, the 75th percentile here, start with the CPM post and with creative made for 9:16 rather than a cropped Feed file.
- If your Facebook link CTR sits under 1.15%, the 25th percentile, the cheaper thousand is going to waste and the fix is the ad, which is most of what our Facebook ads team does.
- If you sell fashion and Instagram carries most of your spend, that matches the 11 fashion brands here; the BeyondNine case study (fashion, $300k to $2M a month in 18 months) shows what scaling one fashion account looked like.
The Facebook vs Instagram guide covers the audience and format differences behind these prices; the DTC Instagram benchmarks post gives the Instagram-only view.
FAQ
Are Instagram ads more expensive than Facebook ads?
At the median, yes. Across 48 DTC brands between 8 June and 13 July 2026, the median CPM was $31.15 on Instagram and $20.30 on Facebook, 53% higher, and the median link CPC was $1.93 against $1.48. Instagram's link CTR was higher, 1.78% against 1.49%. Purchases cannot be split by placement, so the data cannot say which platform produced the cheaper sale.
What is a good Instagram CPM in 2026?
The median Instagram CPM was $31.15 across 48 DTC brands between 8 June and 13 July 2026, with the middle half of brands between $18.24 and $52.94; above $52.94 is the dearest quarter of this sample. Beauty and skincare brands paid $47.64 (8 brands) and fashion brands $36.18 (11 brands). No Q4 placement data exists in this edition.
What is a good CTR for Instagram ads, and is there a Reels benchmark?
The median link CTR on Instagram placements was 1.78% across 48 DTC brands between 8 June and 13 July 2026, with the middle half between 1.33% and 2.57%, against 1.49% on Facebook. The data does not split Instagram into Reels, Stories and Feed, so no Reels CTR benchmark exists in this edition; your own placement breakdown in Ads Manager is the source for that.
Do higher CPMs mean higher quality traffic?
Only as far as the click. In every group with enough brands the dearer platform had the higher link CTR: 1.78% against 1.49% across 48 brands, 2.59% against 1.85% in beauty (8 brands), 1.73% against 1.36% in fashion (11 brands), 8 June to 13 July 2026. The click still cost more on Instagram, $1.93 against $1.48, and purchases cannot be split by placement, so conversion by platform is unknown here.
Sources
- MHI Meta Benchmarks, DTC, October 2026 edition, MHI Media; hub post with methodology, 22 October 2026
- MHI Media warehouse of client Meta ad accounts, benchmark cuts edition, read-only extract 29 October 2026, data settled to 28 October 2026
- Meta Business Help Centre, "About Advantage+ placements", Meta