All examples for CAC Tracker by Channel

B2B SaaS Complete CAC Analysis

Full True CAC calculation for a B2B SaaS company with complete data including ad spend, tools, and team salary. Demonstrates shared cost allocation, industry benchmarking, and strategic recommendations when both channels show equal efficiency.

Input

What you provide to the skill

B2B SaaS: Google Ads $12k/45 customers, LinkedIn $8k/30 customers, shared costs $5k tools + $15k team salary. Q4 2024.

Output

What the skill generates for you

True CAC Analysis - Q4 2024

Direct Costs Summary

Channel Direct Spend Customers Naive CAC
Google Ads $12,000 45 $267
LinkedIn Ads $8,000 30 $267
Total $20,000 75 $267

Shared Costs Allocation

Total Shared Costs: $20,000

  • Marketing tools: $5,000
  • Team salary: $15,000

Allocation Method: Proportional to direct spend

Channel % of Direct Spend Allocated Shared Costs
Google Ads 60.0% $12,000
LinkedIn Ads 40.0% $8,000

True CAC by Channel

Channel Direct Shared Total Cost Customers True CAC
Google Ads $12,000 $12,000 $24,000 45 $533
LinkedIn Ads $8,000 $8,000 $16,000 30 $533

Blended True CAC: $533.33 (vs. naive $267)

Key Finding: True CAC is $533 per customer—exactly 2x the naive calculation. Your shared costs (tools + team) equal your ad spend, which is common for B2B SaaS companies.

Industry Benchmarks

  • B2B SaaS Average CAC: $536 across all channels (2024-2025)
  • B2B SaaS Range: $200-$5,000+ depending on deal size
  • SMB-focused solutions: $200-$300 per customer
  • Mid-market B2B SaaS: $300-$5,000
  • Healthy LTV:CAC Ratio: 3:1 minimum (4:1-7:1 preferred)
  • CAC Payback Period: 12-18 months (top performers <12 months)

Your Position: Your $533 CAC is right at the industry average, suggesting healthy efficiency for a B2B SaaS company.

Channel Ranking

TIE - Both channels identical at $533

Both channels show identical efficiency after shared cost allocation, which means the decision should be based on other factors:

Recommendations

1. Scale both channels strategically

  • Your CAC is at industry average—neither channel is inefficient
  • Google Ads delivers 50% more customers (45 vs. 30) with same efficiency
  • LinkedIn Ads better for B2B targeting and higher deal sizes

2. Decision criteria for allocation:

  • Scale Google first if: Your product has broad appeal, you need volume, or deal sizes are <$10K/year
  • Scale LinkedIn first if: You’re targeting specific job titles/companies, deal sizes >$20K/year, or enterprise focus
  • Scale both proportionally if: Current mix is working and you want predictable growth

3. Monitor these metrics:

  • LTV:CAC ratio: Ensure each customer generates 3x their acquisition cost minimum
  • CAC Payback: Track how many months to recover the $533 (target <18 months)
  • CAC trend: Watch for increases as you scale—expect 10-20% increase when doubling spend

4. Optimize shared costs:

  • Your $20K shared costs = 100% of ad spend (high but normal for early-stage)
  • As you scale, shared costs should grow slower than ad spend (economies of scale)
  • Target: Get shared costs to 50-70% of direct spend by 2x growth

5. Efficiency preservation:

  • Test 20-30% budget increases per channel before doubling
  • Watch for CAC inflation (audience saturation on Google, limited audience on LinkedIn)
  • Consider adding channels if either channel’s CAC rises above $650-700

Bottom Line: You’re performing at industry standard. Neither channel is a clear winner—scale the one that best matches your ICP and deal size, or scale both proportionally to maintain current efficiency while growing volume.


Sources: