The short answer
Search intent is far better than social — somebody typing "business funding fast" is in-market today — but financial services advertising carries verification requirements, the terms are expensive because everyone is bidding on them, and policy enforcement is stricter than on Meta. It suits brokers who can convert high-intent traffic and can absorb a materially higher cost per click.
The trade against social is simple. Meta interrupts people who were not looking; search reaches people who are. That intent is worth paying for and everybody knows it, which is why the clicks cost what they do.
| Google Search | Meta | |
|---|---|---|
| Intent | High — they typed it | Low — you interrupted them |
| Cost per click | Expensive, competitive terms | Cheaper |
| Policy | Financial services verification | Content-based enforcement |
| Volume ceiling | Capped by search demand | Effectively uncapped |
| Creative burden | Low — text ads last | High — even a winning ad is gone in a month or two |
Policy comes before budget
Financial products advertising requires advertiser verification and, in some categories and geographies, licensing evidence. Sort that out before building campaigns rather than after — the common failure is a fully-built account that cannot serve, with spend committed and nothing running.
What converts
- Intent-matched landing pages. A generic homepage wastes the intent you just paid for.
- The same qualification questions as any other funnel — the traffic is better, not self-screening.
- Phone verification, because search traffic contains as many junk submissions as social does.
- A call option alongside the form. High-intent searchers will phone, and a phone call converts better than a form.
The realistic position for most brokers is search as a small, high-intent supplement rather than a primary channel — the volume is capped by how many people search these terms, and it is not enough to fill a floor.