ROAS Benchmarks by Industry (2026)
'Good ROAS' is entirely category-dependent. A 2× on a 70%-margin beauty brand is profitable; a 5× on a 15%-margin electronics retailer is not. Benchmarks below reflect blended, paid-only ROAS at typical merchant scale (>$500k/month spend).
Last reviewed
Blended paid ROAS for ecommerce in 2026 typically lands between 2.3× and 4.2×, with Google campaigns outperforming Meta on reported return because they harvest existing demand rather than create it.
| Industry | Meta ROAS | Google ROAS | Blended |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apparel & Fashion | 2.4× | 3.8× | 2.9× |
| Beauty & Skincare | 2.8× | 4.2× | 3.3× |
| Home & Furniture | 3.1× | 5.0× | 3.8× |
| Electronics | 2.2× | 4.5× | 3.0× |
| Food & Beverage (DTC) | 1.8× | 2.9× | 2.3× |
| Health & Supplements | 2.6× | 3.9× | 3.1× |
| Sports & Outdoors | 2.5× | 4.1× | 3.1× |
| Jewelry & Accessories | 3.4× | 5.6× | 4.2× |
| Pet Care | 2.7× | 4.0× | 3.2× |
Blended by vertical
What the numbers mean
- 01Google consistently posts higher ROAS than Meta because it captures intent-driven demand — but doesn't create it.
- 02Meta ROAS below 2× on a paid-only basis is a category-independent warning sign — creative or feed quality is the first place to look.
- 03The 'right' ROAS depends on margin and LTV. High-margin, high-repeat categories (beauty, supplements) can profitably scale at 2×; commodity electronics needs 4× to break even.
Methodology
Xeli beta accounts cross-checked with public Northbeam and Triple Whale ranges. Blended paid-media ROAS, MER-adjusted. Excludes brand and retargeting.
Why Google reports higher ROAS than Meta
Google captures intent that already exists: someone searching for your product category has already decided to buy something. Meta creates demand from people who were not shopping, so a larger share of its contribution shows up later, on another channel, or as a direct visit. Reading the two numbers as a performance ranking leads to the classic mistake — cutting Meta budget, watching branded search volume fall two to four weeks later, and then watching Google's reported ROAS decline as well. Judge demand-creation channels on incremental effect and blended efficiency, not on platform-reported return.
Margin, not ROAS, decides whether a number is good
Break-even ROAS is one divided by gross margin. At a 70% margin, break-even is about 1.43×, so a 2.8× beauty account is comfortably profitable. At a 25% margin, break-even is 4.0×, so a 3.0× electronics account is losing money on every incremental order before overheads. This is why the same figure can be excellent in one vertical and fatal in another, and why the two questions to answer before benchmarking are what your contribution margin is and how much of a customer's lifetime value you are willing to buy up front.
Blended versus platform-reported return
Platform-reported ROAS double-counts: Meta and Google both claim the same conversion under different attribution models, so the sum of platform numbers regularly exceeds actual revenue. Track marketing efficiency ratio — total revenue divided by total advertising spend — as the number that cannot be double-counted, then use platform ROAS only for relative decisions inside a single channel. Directionally, if platform-reported ROAS rises while marketing efficiency ratio stays flat, you have changed attribution, not performance.
Using ROAS with lifetime value
In categories with genuine repeat purchase — supplements, pet care, coffee, skincare — first-order ROAS understates the truth, and holding acquisition to a first-order target caps growth. Model contribution over the first 90 to 180 days instead, and set the acquisition target from that horizon. In categories with weak repeat purchase, such as furniture or one-off electronics, first-order economics are the whole picture and the target has to be set conservatively.
Frequently asked questions
What is a good ROAS for ecommerce in 2026?
Blended paid ROAS of 2.3–4.2× is typical, but the only meaningful test is your break-even, which equals one divided by gross margin. High-margin categories can scale profitably near 2×, while low-margin categories need 4× or better.
Why is my Meta ROAS lower than my Google ROAS?
Google harvests demand that already exists, while Meta creates it, so a share of Meta's contribution appears later or on another channel. Compare demand-creation spend on incremental and blended measures rather than on platform-reported return.
Is a 2x ROAS profitable?
It depends entirely on gross margin. At 70% margin, break-even is roughly 1.43×, so 2× is profitable. At 25% margin, break-even is 4×, so 2× loses money on every order.
Should I use platform ROAS or blended ROAS?
Use blended marketing efficiency ratio for budget decisions because platform figures double-count conversions across channels. Keep platform ROAS for comparing campaigns and creatives inside the same channel.
Sources
- 01Marketing efficiency and blended reporting — NorthbeamBlended and incremental measurement methodology.
- 02Ecommerce metrics benchmarks — Triple WhaleMerchant ROAS and MER reporting ranges.
- 03About value-based bidding — Google Ads HelpHow value signals change reported return.
- 04About attribution settings — Meta Business Help CentreWhy platform-attributed return differs between channels.