Service converts at ~2.5× vehicle sales and gets budgeted like an afterthought

Across 2,001 automotive search campaigns the category averages a 6.17% click-through rate, a $3.13 cost per click, an 8.80% conversion rate and a $32.79 cost per lead. Those averages describe nobody. Inside them, auto parts converts at 29.01% for a $19.69 lead and used-vehicle dealers convert at 3.93% for a $58.56 lead. Service and repair sits at 11.94% and $44.26, body repair at 10.23% and $53.52, tyre dealers at a $22.65 cost per lead, and new-vehicle dealers at 8.13% and $32.79. A single automotive budget line averages across a range where the cheapest lead costs a third of the most expensive.

Auto parts converts at 29.01% and used-vehicle dealers at 3.93%, and both are usually funded from the same budget line.

1. 01

   Two independent benchmark sets put service at the top and disagree on the level

   One puts automotive repair, service and parts at a 15.51% conversion rate and a $29.96 cost per lead, the highest conversion rate of any industry it measures. The other puts auto service and repair at 11.94% and $44.26 across 2,001 automotive campaigns. Different windows, different campaign sets, same ranking. Use the direction with confidence and instrument the level.

2. 02

   Intent is the variable across the whole category, not creative

   The closer the query is to a known part or a known problem, the cheaper the lead. Parts at 29.01%, service at 11.94%, body repair at 10.23%, new vehicles at 8.13%, used vehicles at 3.93%. That is a ranking by how specific the buyer's need is, and nothing in an advertisement moves a category from one end of it to the other.

3. 03

   Tyres at $22.65 and body repair at $53.52 are the same building and different businesses

   A 2.4-fold spread in cost per lead inside one dealership group. Funding automotive as one line averages across that spread and quietly uses the cheapest leads to subsidise the most expensive ones, which is invisible in a blended report and obvious the moment the lines are separated.

4. 04

   Service demand is recurring and calendar-driven; sales demand is episodic

   A service department has a predictable, repeating population of vehicles with due dates attached. A sales floor has a monthly unit target. Budgeted from the same pool, the recurring one always loses to the one with a number due at the end of the month, regardless of which converts better.

5. 05

   The all-channel website figure flatters what search alone does

   The published website conversion rate for automotive is 7.9% across all channels. Paid search into used-vehicle inventory converts at 3.93%. Reporting the first while buying the second is how a media review ends with everybody agreeing the website is fine.

Auto Repair, Service & Parts CVR **15.51%** vs Auto (For Sale) **6.01%** — ~2.5× (was stated as 3×). Auto service is now the **2nd-highest-converting** paid-search category of 23 (Animals & Pets is #1 at 16.22%); it was #1 in 2025.

The model splits the budget before it optimises anything. Each sub-category — parts, tyres, service, body, new, used — gets its own campaign structure, its own cost per lead target and its own conversion definition, because a service booking and a used-vehicle enquiry are not the same event and should never share a target. Service is built around booking capacity and due-date demand rather than around lead volume, with the booking system rather than a form as the conversion. Used vehicles are measured on appointments rather than form fills, on the basis that the published conversion rate for that sub-category is the lowest in automotive and the form is the least reliable part of it.

1. 1

   Weeks 1–2

   Category split

   Spend, leads and conversions separated by sub-category; blended automotive reporting retired

   Owner: OmniFlow

2. 2

   Weeks 2–3

   Conversion definitions

   A booking counts for service, an appointment counts for sales; form fills stop counting as leads

   Owner: OmniFlow + dealership

3. 3

   Weeks 3–7

   Service build

   Booking-led campaigns against due-date and problem-specific demand, capacity-aware pacing

   Owner: OmniFlow

4. 4

   Weeks 5–10

   Sales build

   New and used separated, used measured on appointments, inventory-aware landing pages

   Owner: OmniFlow

5. 5

   Week 12

   Review

   Cost per booking and cost per appointment by sub-category; no blended automotive figure reported

   Owner: OmniFlow

The model reports cost per booking for service and cost per appointment for sales, per sub-category, and does not report a blended automotive figure at all. At published rates the spread inside the category runs from a $19.69 lead converting at 29.01% to a $58.56 lead converting at 3.93%, which is not one market and cannot be managed to one target. Both benchmark sets are used for ranking rather than for level, and the dealership's own rates replace them from month two. Service is additionally reported against booking capacity, because a department that fills its diary has no use for more leads and every use for a higher-value repair order.

Modelled. Inputs: LocaliQ, Automotive Search Advertising Benchmarks 2026 (2,001 US search campaigns, October 2024 – September 2025); WordStream by LocaliQ, Google Ads Benchmarks 2026 (13,474 US search campaigns, April 2025 – March 2026); Ruler Analytics, Conversion Rate Benchmarks 2026 (110M+ sessions, 5M+ conversions). Modelled outputs are not a forecast or a guarantee of results. Cited: WordStream/LocaliQ *2026 Google Ads Benchmarks*.

Every figure below is published research, not a client result. They are the inputs to the arithmetic above, listed so it can be checked rather than taken on trust. The bracketed number points to the full citation at the end of this page.

These are the surfaces this engagement is run and measured from, shown with representative figures built around the benchmarks cited on this page. Every account we run reports into views like these, and you keep ownership of all of them.

Each figure on this page, the system it is read from, and the definition and window it is measured over.

Not applicable — this is a modelled engagement. Its weakest input is that the two benchmark sets disagree by more than three percentage points on the service conversion rate and neither publishes the mix of campaign objectives inside each sub-category. Worse, cost per lead is a form-fill definition in both, which in service usually means a booking request and in used vehicles usually means a general enquiry, so the two are not the same unit and are being compared as though they were. That is precisely why the model redefines the conversion event per sub-category in week two rather than inheriting the benchmark's definition.

A modelled capability, not a client account. Figures illustrate what the model produces and are labelled as modelled wherever they appear. See all our work

Full citations for everything cited on this page, with the sample and period each study covers, so you can go and read the original.