If you run an RIA with $500m to $5bn of AUM, you'll have a good idea of what you can afford in marketing spend. The harder question is whether the numbers you're actually seeing make sense.
Is $100 a lead expensive? Is $300 for a booked appointment reasonable? Is a 50% show rate good? What should you expect to pay for a new client? And if one campaign gets appointments for $250 and another at $450, is one better than the other?
There isn't one set of numbers that answers that. RIA acquisition funnels vary widely depending on minimum asset size, geography, brand awareness, offer, advisor visibility and competition. Two firms can run very similar Meta campaigns and see very different economics, without either campaign being broken.
Which is why a benchmark is more useful as a diagnostic tool for your own funnel than as a score to hit.
This article steps through the funnel from lead generation to new AUM and explains what each metric means, what drives it, and where the pitfalls are in assuming one number tells you something useful on its own.
The figures below are target costs from Meta-led acquisition campaigns aimed at prospects with at least $500,000 of investable assets. They're targets, not guarantees. Outcomes vary with the firm, the market, the funnel and the execution.
Cost per Lead
Cost per lead is the cost of generating a prospect at the first step of your funnel. It's straightforward to measure, which is exactly why it gets overplayed.
A firm can easily produce cheap leads and think it has delivered a good campaign. But a lead is only the start of the funnel. Unless those leads go on to book, show, qualify and become clients, a cheap lead is a costly distraction.
What a plausible cost per lead looks like
There isn't really a cost-per-lead range that works as a benchmark across RIAs, because "lead" means different things depending on the funnel and takes different effort to generate.
A campaign asking someone to complete a simple form is very different from one trying to find prospects with at least $500,000 of investable assets who are prepared to book a call with an advisor.
The more you qualify leads, the more expensive they become. That doesn't make it a worse campaign. Provided the additional qualification produces better appointments and better clients further down the funnel, a rising lead cost is perfectly acceptable.
Think of cost per lead as a measure of front-end efficiency rather than acquisition success.
What makes cost per lead move
Lead cost varies with audience, geography, offer, creative quality and how competitive the space is.
In wealth management the asset minimum matters particularly. Asking Meta to find people interested in investing is very different from finding people who could reasonably be expected to hold $500,000 or more in investable assets.
Your lead form and landing page also affect lead cost. More friction reduces the chance of someone converting, but those who do convert are often more valuable.
That's the key trade-off with lead cost. Cheaper isn't automatically better.
What it doesn't tell you
It won't show you whether your leads are qualified, whether they book, whether they turn up, or whether they become clients bringing meaningful new AUM.
If cost per lead rises while cost per qualified appointment and cost per client improve, the higher lead cost isn't a problem. The funnel gets judged at the bottom, not the top.
Cost per Booked Appointment
Cost per booked appointment is more useful, because it reflects a more meaningful action than submitting a form. The prospect has picked a time to speak to the firm.
For Meta-led acquisition targeting people with at least $500,000 of investable assets, a campaign target at scale is roughly $250 to $350 per booked appointment. That's a target, not an industry average.
Nationwide versus local acquisition
Geography drives significant variation. A national campaign draws from a much bigger pool, so booked appointments can be expected in the $250 to $300 range. A local campaign runs more expensive, and $400 to $500 per booked appointment is reasonable.
At first glance the local campaign looks worse. That can be completely wrong.
Local campaigns have geographic relevance, more familiarity with the firm, and a prospect more willing to meet an advisor nearby. Higher close rates follow. If substantially more of those $450 local appointments become clients than the $275 national ones, the local appointment is the better acquisition asset.
Comparing appointment costs without considering downstream conversion is where firms make expensive mistakes.
What makes cost per booked appointment move
The landing page is a major variable. A published target for conversion is around 1.5% click-to-appointment.
The ad matters too, because only if the right person sees it will they reach the landing page at all. The published target for click-through rate on the ad is around 1.5%.
The offer matters, since prospects need a good reason to take the next step. Geography and asset threshold change the economics: a campaign aimed at a narrower, wealthier audience sits differently from a broad financial services campaign.
Advisor positioning matters as well. If the prospect knows who they'll be speaking with and why it's worth their time, the appointment feels like a natural next step rather than a sales call.
What it doesn't tell you
It doesn't show how many people turn up. A firm booking appointments at $250 each can still have poor economics if most prospects never attend.
It doesn't show whether they're suitable. A calendar full of people who booked but don't meet the asset minimum isn't a good acquisition system.
And it doesn't show how many become clients. A booked appointment is a key milestone, but it's still a leading indicator.
Cost per Attended Appointment
Cost per attended appointment shows what you pay for a prospect who actually turns up, and booked and attended aren't the same thing.
Across these campaigns you'd normally expect a 50% to 60% show rate. At 50%, every two booked appointments give about one attended conversation. At 60%, slightly more than one.
Show rate therefore directly affects the economics of everything beneath it. At $300 per booked appointment and a 50% show rate, each attended conversation effectively costs $600. At a 60% show rate, the same $300 appointment delivers an attended conversation for $500.
What makes show rate move
Show rate depends on what happens between booking and the appointment. A good confirmation message, reminders and the perceived value of the meeting all matter, as does the time between booking and the meeting itself.
So does the quality of the booking. Someone booking impulsively off an ad is less likely to turn up than someone who understands the offer, meets the asset minimum and has a particular reason for wanting the conversation.
That's another reason not to focus purely on maximizing bookings. You can always generate more by removing friction, but more of them will be low-intent and you'll simply end up with more no-shows.
What it tells you, and what it doesn't
This metric shows the real cost of driving conversations with advisors, combining the efficiency of booking with the prospect's willingness to attend.
If you have a reasonable cost per booked appointment but a high cost per attended one, the problem is more likely between booking and the meeting than at the booking stage. Knowing that tells you where to focus.
What it doesn't tell you is whether the conversation was worth having. The prospect might have less investable capital than expected, might not suit the service model, might not have a problem the firm can help with, or might not be open to moving assets.
Cost per Qualified Appointment
Cost per qualified appointment tells you what it cost to generate an attended conversation that meets the firm's own criteria. It's one of the most useful metrics for an RIA, because only once an appointment is qualified does activity start turning into opportunity.
A qualified appointment might be one that meets the $500k minimum, suits the service model and geography, has a relevant financial need, and is open to engaging the firm. It's up to the firm to decide what counts.
Why qualification matters
Two campaigns might both generate 20 attended appointments. In campaign A, many don't meet the minimum asset level. In campaign B there are fewer appointments overall, but most meet the criteria.
Looking only at attended appointments, the campaigns appear similar. Looking at qualified appointments, the picture is completely different.
Define what a qualified appointment is before you start assessing campaign performance. Otherwise "good lead" becomes a subjective description that different people apply differently.
What makes it move
Qualification starts with targeting. If the campaign pulls in people unlikely to meet the minimum, the sales team spends its time filtering them out afterwards.
Creative and messaging matter too, because an ad can discourage poor-fit prospects while attracting people who recognize themselves in the firm's positioning. The offer matters because it determines who responds. Geography matters because the relevance of the service model changes with location.
Brand recognition can matter enormously. A well-known local firm has an easier time getting qualified prospects to act than an unfamiliar firm entering the same market.
What it doesn't tell you
A qualified appointment isn't a client. Even a well-qualified prospect can decide not to proceed, whether over investment philosophy, service model, personality, fees, timing or trust.
The advisor's sales process matters. The prospect's circumstances matter. And the value of the opportunity varies enormously from one qualified appointment to another. Which is another reason the funnel needs to be judged against new clients and new AUM.
Cost per New Client
Cost per new client is the point where marketing metrics first feed into business outcomes. It tells you, on average, how much spend is needed to acquire a client.
There isn't a single sensible range to apply, because the economics vary considerably with close rate, client type, geography, sales process and AUM delivered.
But you can build a reference point from the targets above. At around a 10% close rate among prospects who show, and a 50% to 60% show rate, roughly one in every 18 to 20 booked appointments becomes a client.
Run that through the appointment cost range and you get a modeled cost per client of roughly $4,200 to $7,000 for national Meta acquisition at a $500k minimum. The favorable end is $250 appointments with a 60% show rate. The challenging end is $350 appointments with a 50% show rate.
That's a modeled figure built on published targets, not a guarantee, but it gives you a useful check. If you're spending $30,000 per client, something in your funnel is materially different from these assumptions, and the derivation above tells you which stages to examine.
Why the close rate matters
If prospects consistently show up but very few become clients, reducing ad cost won't fix it.
The cause might be appointment quality, your positioning, the advisor's sales process, or a campaign pulling in prospects who are curious but not ready to consider changing.
Cost per new client is a compound metric. It depends on everything before it: ad performance, landing page conversion, appointment quality, show rate, and the advisor's ability to turn a qualified prospect into a client.
What makes it move
A change at any point in the funnel shows up here. Rising cost per booked appointment alongside a substantially better close rate can leave cost per new client healthy. Falling appointment costs alongside worsening qualification make it deteriorate. A falling show rate raises the effective cost of delivering sales conversations. And if a local market produces a better close rate than a national campaign, more expensive local appointments can still deliver better economics.
Follow the metric across enough volume to distinguish an underlying trend from normal campaign variation.
What it doesn't tell you
It doesn't tell you whether those clients are economically attractive. Two clients each count as one new client while generating very different amounts of new AUM.
Which brings us to the metric that matters most for an RIA.
Cost per Dollar of New AUM
Underlying everything is the question that matters most to an asset management business: how much did we spend to win each dollar of new assets?
Conceptually it's straightforward. Take the spend attributable to the campaign and compare it with the new AUM won. The tricky part is deciding what spend is attributable and what counts as new AUM.
A new client may bring some assets immediately and more later. An existing client may add assets after a conversation prompted by the campaign. Some prospects become clients but move only part of their investable assets. Only with a consistent approach to attribution does this number start to mean anything.
Why it can change how you judge campaigns
Consider one campaign that produces cheap appointments with prospects who tend to have modest account sizes, and another that produces more expensive appointments but more substantial relationships.
Optimize on cost per appointment and you'd pick the first. Optimize on cost per dollar of new AUM and you might well pick the reverse.
That's why RIA marketing can't be reduced to a single acquisition metric. The value of the client matters, the amount of AUM won matters, and the cost of generating the opportunity matters.
What makes it move
Everything upstream, plus the firm's client mix. An RIA with a high minimum and a strong proposition for larger households has different economics from one chasing smaller relationships.
Geography affects it through both appointment cost and close rate. Brand awareness affects it, because a well-known name reduces friction throughout the funnel. Advisor visibility affects the prospect's willingness to engage. And the sales process affects it throughout.
The marketing campaign creates the opportunity. It isn't the only factor shaping the final economics.
Why RIA Benchmarks Vary So Much
Look at campaign reports from different RIA firms and it quickly becomes clear why generic benchmarks mislead. The same metric can reflect very different acquisition environments.
Asset minimum
A firm targeting people with a $500,000 minimum isn't running the same funnel as one targeting anyone wanting financial advice. The more specific the desired prospect, the more specific the campaign has to be.
The threshold also changes the value of a successful relationship, which is why acquisition cost has to be considered alongside downstream economics.
Geography
A nationwide campaign might produce booked appointments around $250 to $300 as a published target. A local campaign sits around $400 to $500.
That doesn't make nationwide better. Local campaigns often have an edge in trust and familiarity. Someone who recognizes the firm, knows the market or would prefer a local advisor is more likely to become a client. So even though the local appointment costs more than the typical national target, it can still deliver better economics.
Existing brand recognition
This is a key reason benchmark comparisons go wrong.
Take a firm that has dominated one state for decades. It has published a book. Its advisors have appeared on radio. It has had TV exposure. In that market, people already know the name.
Put that firm onto Meta and it may well pick up appointments well below the typical campaign target. That doesn't mean the campaign structure can be replicated at another RIA. This firm isn't starting from scratch. The ads are building on existing brand equity, and prospects may already know the firm before they click, so the campaign has less trust to build.
It's a genuine performance edge. It isn't a fair benchmark for an unfamiliar firm.
The offer
Part of the reason someone takes the next step is the offer. A generic "come find out more about wealth management" is very different from a specific reason a qualified prospect might want to book a conversation.
The strength of the offer affects both lead quality and conversion rate, which is why two campaigns buying well against similar audiences can show different economics.
Advisor visibility on camera
People don't hire an abstract advisory firm. They hire people. For many RIAs, the advisor's credibility, communication style and personality are central to the decision.
Bringing an advisor visibly into the acquisition process changes how prospects see the firm. They hear the message before the first meeting, and it screens prospects too. Someone who responds to the advisor's message arrives at the appointment more trusting than someone who saw a generic firm ad.
Competitive density
In some markets you face heavy competition for the same high-net-worth households. In others you have stronger name recognition or fewer direct competitors. How many good offers a prospect receives from elsewhere affects how well your advertising performs.
There's no simple industry-wide figure that reflects all of this, which is why your own past performance is a better benchmark than someone else's dashboard.
How to Benchmark Against Yourself
Start by building a picture of your own performance across the key funnel stages: cost per lead, cost per booked appointment, show rate, cost per attended appointment, qualification rate, cost per qualified appointment, close rate, cost per new client and new AUM generated.
Don't change definitions halfway through. If a "qualified appointment" means one thing in January and something else in June, you won't be able to read the trend.
Look at direction over time
Once you have the baseline, look at direction. Is cost per booked appointment improving? Is show rate holding? Are more attended appointments being qualified? Is close rate improving? Is new AUM per client changing?
You shouldn't be aiming at an industry benchmark. You should be asking whether, over time, your acquisition system is becoming more efficient and more valuable.
Identify where the change happened
This is where a funnel-level picture earns its keep.
Say cost per client suddenly rises. Don't assume the ads stopped working. Look at the stages underneath. Maybe cost per booked appointment held but show rate dropped. Maybe show rate held but qualification fell. Maybe qualification held but the close rate dropped. Each points to a different underlying cause.
The same applies when cost per client improves. Maybe the ads got more efficient, or the landing page improved, or appointment quality improved, or the advisor improved their close rate.
Without stage-level tracking, all of those outcomes look identical: cost per client changed. With it, you can see what actually shifted.
How to Use Benchmarks Diagnostically
The best way to use a benchmark is as a question rather than a statement of fact. A number outside the expected range doesn't mean something is wrong. It tells you where to look.
High cost per lead, good cost per client
This happens, and there's nothing wrong with it. If leads are expensive but high quality, booking at a good rate, showing up and closing well, the business is working.
Forcing lead cost down could make the funnel less effective if cheaper leads arrive less qualified. Rather than asking "why are leads expensive?", ask "is the expensive lead delivering valuable outcomes downstream?"
Low cost per lead, poor cost per client
The reverse problem, and perhaps more common. On the advertising platform the campaign looks strong. Lead volume is good at an attractive cost. But the sales team isn't producing clients.
That points to something downstream. The campaign may be pulling the wrong people. Qualification may be weak. Appointments may not be taken seriously. Show rates may be poor. Or the sales process may not be converting what it's given.
A cheap lead isn't valuable if it never becomes revenue or AUM.
Good cost per appointment, bad show rate
Another common trap. The campaign is doing its job in one sense, but if a large share of appointments never happen, the firm is paying for calendar entries rather than conversations.
There's probably little need to fix the ad itself. Look instead at the booking process, the reminders, the time between booking and appointment, whether prospects understand what they've signed up for, and whether the campaign is attracting people who genuinely want to talk to an advisor.
The Benchmark Is a Starting Point
For Meta-led acquisition targeting $500k or more in investable assets, the published campaign targets give useful reference points: roughly 1.5% click-through on the ad, roughly 1.5% click-to-appointment on the landing page, $250 to $350 per booked appointment at scale, a 50% to 60% show rate, and around a 10% close rate among those who show.
On geography, $250 to $300 per booked appointment nationally and $400 to $500 locally are useful ranges, bearing in mind that local campaigns tend to produce better close rates.
Those numbers help answer "is this worth investigating?" They don't answer "is this a good campaign?" Only the full funnel can do that.
What matters more for an RIA is the progression from lead to booked appointment to attended appointment to qualified opportunity to new client to new AUM. Only at that point does acquisition cost become business economics.
The firms best at paid acquisition are rarely the ones fixated on an unusually low cost per lead. They know what each stage costs, they know where their own funnel is strong and weak, and when performance shifts they can trace it back to the stage that caused it.
Benchmarks put performance in context. Only your own funnel tells you whether the campaign is working.
