Almost every ad benchmark published for this region is an estimate with no account behind it. These are not. Every figure below is a campaign we ran, named, with the volume that produced it, and each one is also listed on our public benchmarks page.
The numbers
| Industry | What was bought | Cost | Volume | Market |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| E-commerce & retail | Conversation | 1.13 EGP | 594 orders | Egypt |
| Food & beverage | Conversation | 1.36 EGP | 738 conversations | Egypt |
| Aesthetics & medical | Lead | 1.74 EGP | 1,764 leads | Egypt |
| Retail (Google search) | Click | 0.52 EGP | 2,380 clicks | Gulf |
| Automotive | Conversion | 4.87 EGP | 2,235 conversions | Saudi Arabia |
| Aesthetic clinics (premium) | Conversation | 5.68 EGP | 387 conversations | Egypt |
| Real estate | Qualified lead | 10.66 EGP | 93 leads | Egypt |
| E-commerce (Gulf) | Full-funnel | — | 4,275 orders | Saudi Arabia |
Each row traces to a client and a published case study on the benchmarks page. We publish them with volumes because a cost per result without one is a screenshot of a good afternoon.
The nine-times spread is the point
The cheapest result here costs a ninth of the most expensive, and both are good numbers. A 1.36 EGP conversation for a cafe and a 10.66 EGP qualified lead for a property developer are not competing: one sells a meal, the other an apartment.
Which is why the Golden View figure matters most of the set. That campaign paid deliberately above the market's cheap-lead benchmarks because qualification questions filtered out people who were never going to buy. Cost per lead rose; cost per sale fell. Anyone optimising purely for a low cost per lead in real estate ends up with a busy sales team and an empty month.
What the numbers do not tell you
A benchmark says what a result cost; it does not say whether that result became money. The step after it is yours: export the leads or conversations, mark which ones closed, and divide the spend by the number of customers. That figure — cost per closed sale — is the only one that decides whether to scale.
The gap between the two numbers is your sales process, not your advertising. An account at 2 EGP per lead with nobody answering the phone performs worse than one at 12 EGP with a team that calls within the hour.
How to use a benchmark without being misled
- Check what was bought. A conversation, a lead and a purchase are three different events; comparing across them is meaningless.
- Check the volume. Eleven results on a good day is not a benchmark.
- Check whether it held while scaling. Nearly every account is cheap when small.
- Compare to your own margin, not to the table. The only target that matters is one your business can absorb.
Why we do not publish a CTR benchmark
It is a common request, and we leave it out on purpose. Click-through rate is the easiest metric in the account to make look good: a broad audience and a curiosity-led creative will lift it while producing nothing. We have seen accounts with an excellent CTR and no sales, and accounts with a mediocre CTR that were profitable all year.
If you need a diagnostic, use cost per result and the rate at which results become customers. Those two cannot be gamed without the business actually improving.
What moves your number
In order of impact: the action you ask for, the offer, creative freshness, and the season. Bid settings and audience micro-targeting sit far below all four despite receiving most of the attention. The full breakdown is in how to lower your cost per acquisition, and the definition itself in what cost per result means.
Where our numbers come from
These are not survey estimates or industry averages. Each figure is the reported cost in a live ad account we managed, over the period that produced the stated volume, for a client named in the case study. We publish them for two reasons: a number with a client attached can be checked, and it is the standard we ask prospects to hold us to.
It also means the table is narrow by design. We do not publish figures for categories we have not run, which is why there is no line here for sectors we do not serve.
Seasons that change the table
Ramadan, Black Friday, back-to-school and the last ten days of December all raise impression costs because more advertisers want the same inventory. A number that was normal in September can look alarming in late November and still be fine.
Judge against the same month last year where you can, and plan creative four to six weeks before a season rather than during it — the auction is most expensive exactly when your least-tested content would be running.
The full table with client names and case studies is on benchmarks, and if you want an estimate for your own category before spending anything, tell us what you sell and what a customer is worth to you.
Quick answers.
01What is a good cost per result on Meta in Egypt?
Only one your margin can absorb. Across our published campaigns a conversation runs 1.13–5.68 EGP, a lead 1.74–10.66 EGP, and a conversion 4.87 EGP — and each of those is a good number in its own category.
02What is a normal CTR for Meta ads in Egypt?
We do not publish a CTR benchmark, because it is the metric most easily inflated by cheap clicks that never buy. Cost per result tied to volume is the figure worth comparing against.
03Why do benchmarks vary so much between industries?
Because the result is a different thing. A conversation about a meal and a qualified lead for an apartment are different asks of a different buyer, so a nine-times spread between them is expected rather than alarming.
04Can I use these as a target for my own account?
As a sanity check, yes. As a target, no — set your target from what a customer is worth to you. An account hitting 2 EGP per lead can still be unprofitable, and one at 15 EGP can be excellent.
05Do these costs hold when budget increases?
That is the right question to ask of any benchmark. In the ICAR account 4.87 EGP held across 2,235 conversions while budget scaled, and the reason was weekly creative rather than a setting.
