Overview
Meta lead quality improved significantly
Win rate nearly doubled between the two periods. Mid-funnel engagement — the key quality indicator — saw its biggest gains, while the remaining gap versus other sources is now narrowing.
Period comparison — Meta only
Funnel progression by period
Every stage improved in Period 2. The biggest jump was in mid-funnel: more Meta leads completed the intake form, signalling genuine intent rather than passive interest.
Period 1 · Apr 20 – May 14
7.4%
win rate · 108 Meta leads · 8 closed
Weakest periodPeriod 2 · May 15 – Jun 10
13.8%
win rate · 65 Meta leads · 9 closed
Best period ↑Conversion deep dive
Stage-to-stage conversion — Meta leads
The Engaged → Intake step is the biggest quality signal. It improved 14 percentage points, meaning more Meta leads took the active step of starting the intake form between the two periods.
Next-step conversion rates — Meta only
% of leads converting to the following stage
Overall pipeline improvement — all sources
Key conversion rates across all lead sources, both periods
Source benchmarking — Period 2
How Meta compares to other sources
Meta now sits near the overall average for win rate. Google Ads still leads on conversion quality, but Meta delivers more than double the lead volume.
| Source | Leads | Won | Win rate | Engaged % | Intake % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Google Ads | 28 | 8 | 28.6% | 89.3% | 64.3% |
| Instagram Organic | 22 | 4 | 18.2% | 90.9% | 72.7% |
| Overall average | 239 | 38 | 15.9% | 81.2% | 53.6% |
| Google Business Profile | 43 | 6 | 14.0% | 83.7% | 60.5% |
| Meta Ad | 65 | 9 | 13.8% | 84.6% | 50.8% |
Key takeaways
What the data says
Three clear signals from this analysis, and one remaining gap to close.
Meta lead quality improved meaningfully between periods
Win rate went from 7.4% to 13.8% — nearly doubling. The mid-funnel improvement (Engaged → Intake: 45.7% → 60.0%) is the strongest quality signal, as intake completion requires active effort from the lead. Volume dropped from 108 to 65, suggesting tighter targeting likely drove the quality improvement.
The whole pipeline improved, not just Meta
Overall Engaged → Intake conversion went from 44.2% to 66.0% across all sources — a 22pp jump. This suggests either the follow-up or intake process improved operationally in Period 2, or lead quality improved across the board. The overall win rate moved from 12.4% to 15.9%.
Meta's remaining gap: Consult Sent → Deposit
Meta converts 34.6% at the Consult → Deposit step vs 41.1% for the overall average. Meta leads are reaching the consult but not committing to deposit at the same rate as other sources. A stronger offer, urgency trigger, or dedicated follow-up sequence at this specific stage could close the gap.
The CPL question: higher CPL may be justified
Meta leads engage strongly early (84.6% reach Engaged) and every lead that pays a deposit converts to Won (100% Deposit → Won rate). If Meta's CPL is higher, the relevant number to compare is cost-per-closed-deal, not cost-per-lead. With 9 closes from 65 leads at 13.8% win rate and $2,000 revenue per conversion, the pipeline value from Meta in Period 2 was approximately $18,000.