Which paid-search platform delivers better ROI for regulated UK advisory firms? A side-by-side benchmark comparison.
**Run both.** Google wins on volume and audience signals. Microsoft wins on CPC efficiency and older-demographic over-index. In mature UK adviser accounts, Microsoft typically takes 10-20% of paid-search budget and delivers 15-25% lower blended CPL.
Most UK advisory firms default to Google Ads and stop there. That leaves Microsoft Ads - and 7-8% of the UK search market - on the table.
The two platforms are structurally near-identical. Campaigns, ad groups, keywords, responsive search ads, audience signals and conversion tracking all map one-for-one. Microsoft Ads even offers a one-click **Import from Google Ads** tool that replicates your account in minutes.
### Where Microsoft wins - CPC is typically 20-28% lower for the same high-intent keywords - Users skew older (55% over 35 vs 48% on Google) and higher-income - Edge and Outlook defaults push more desktop traffic, suiting longer advisory forms - Less competitive auction means higher impression share at lower bids
### Where Google wins - Volume - you typically see 3-5x the search impressions - Deeper audience signals (in-market, life events, demographic) - Broader keyword coverage including long-tail voice queries - Stronger mobile and YouTube integration
### The verdict Run both. Start with Google, get your conversion tracking and landing pages clean, then import into Microsoft and run a 90-day parallel test. In the niches where Microsoft wins - pension consolidation, IHT, equity release, retirement annuities - shift budget accordingly.
Want a second opinion on your channel mix?
Model paid-media scenarios with real adviser CPL and MQL benchmarks.