The 2026 click-through-rate benchmark table for the Google Display Network — 12 industries, 7 ad sizes, with CPM ranges and attention-zone notes for each size format.
Data source
Estimated based on publicly reported benchmarks and industry surveys aggregated in 2026 — including WordStream Display benchmarks, Google Ads disclosures, IAB inventory reports, and a composite of agency-published ranges. Figures are directional and representative of typical accounts; they are not proprietary measurement. Your own 30-day account data is the cleanest benchmark for your specific program.
Average, top-quartile, and bottom-quartile click-through rates and CPM ranges across the Google Display Network, aggregated across all ad sizes.
| Industry | Avg CTR | Good CTR (top quartile) | Poor CTR (bottom quartile) | CPM range |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Local Services | 0.60% | 1.10% | 0.27% | $1.50 – $4.00 |
| E-commerce / DTC | 0.55% | 1.00% | 0.25% | $2.00 – $5.00 |
| Travel & Hospitality | 0.55% | 1.05% | 0.25% | $2.00 – $4.50 |
| Automotive | 0.50% | 0.95% | 0.22% | $2.50 – $5.50 |
| Education | 0.50% | 0.90% | 0.22% | $2.00 – $5.00 |
| Consumer Packaged Goods | 0.50% | 0.95% | 0.22% | $1.80 – $4.00 |
| Real Estate | 0.45% | 0.85% | 0.20% | $2.00 – $5.00 |
| Healthcare | 0.40% | 0.75% | 0.18% | $3.00 – $6.00 |
| SaaS / B2B Software | 0.40% | 0.75% | 0.18% | $3.00 – $7.00 |
| B2B Services | 0.35% | 0.65% | 0.15% | $3.50 – $8.00 |
| Fintech | 0.30% | 0.55% | 0.12% | $4.00 – $9.00 |
| Insurance | 0.25% | 0.50% | 0.10% | $4.00 – $8.00 |
| Estimated benchmarks · 2026 · Google Display Network · USD CPM | ||||
Display CTRs live on a different scale than social-feed CTRs — and that's by design. Display inventory is passive: viewers are there to consume an article, watch a video, or use an app, not to scroll a dedicated feed. A CTR of 0.5% on the GDN is economically comparable to a 1.3% CTR on Facebook Feed because Display CPMs are 70–85% lower.
Underperforming
Below 0.25%
Sustained Display CTR below 0.25% on prospecting nearly always indicates a creative problem. Check CTA contrast, headline specificity, and whether every size is hand-designed.
Typical
0.4% – 0.6%
Most active Display campaigns land in this band. Acceptable for reach and retargeting; not differentiating for prospecting.
Top quartile
Above 0.8%
Top-quartile Display creatives clear 0.8% consistently. They win by designing each ad size independently and over-contrasting the CTA against banner-blindness.
A more useful diagnostic than absolute CTR is size-by-size CTR: are the Leaderboards and Skyscrapers dragging your blended rate down? If your 300×250 performs at 0.55% but your 728×90 lands at 0.20%, you have a size- specific creative problem — not a campaign-level one. Break out CTR by size before diagnosing further.
E-commerce on Display sits at 0.55% average — roughly 40% of its Feed CTR, typical for the shift from active scroll to passive browsing. Top-quartile creatives (1.00%+) share a pattern: a single product cut-out on a solid color background, a numeric offer ('30% off'), and a CTA button that reads as a UI element rather than decoration. The bottom quartile is almost always lifestyle photography — too visually complex for a 300×250 to parse in the ~2 seconds of attention Display gets.
SaaS at 0.40% reflects a hard problem: explaining a software product in 300×250 pixels is genuinely constrained. Top-quartile (0.75%+) creatives lean on a single UI screenshot as the dominant visual, one specific benefit (not a value prop), and a CTA that matches the funnel stage. Display works better for mid-funnel re-engagement of account-matched audiences than for cold prospecting in this category — the CTR gap closes when the audience is already aware.
Fintech has the second-lowest Display CTR at 0.30%. The audience is saturated, regulatory constraints on claims are real, and the category suffers worse-than-average banner blindness (viewers have learned to ignore financial Display inventory). Winning creatives lead with a specific, verifiable number — an APY, a cash bonus, a fee. Lifestyle imagery and 'redefine your finances' abstraction reliably sits in the bottom quartile.
Education at 0.50% is slightly above the Display average because outcome-framed messaging ('become a data analyst in 6 months') is concrete enough to earn attention even in passive browsing. Top-quartile creatives feature real people — students or instructors — rather than stock imagery, and frame the CTA as a low-commitment first step ('download curriculum', 'book 15-min info call') rather than a full enrollment action.
Healthcare Display CTR averages 0.40% under heavy category constraints: platform restrictions on therapeutic claims, compliance sensitivity, and the difficulty of discussing conditions in a passive-browsing context. Top-quartile creatives (0.75%+) tend to be category-specific — mental-health telehealth, prescription refills, dental — where the problem is recognizable and the offer is frictionless. Avoid anything that requires the viewer to infer the value proposition.
Local services post the highest Display CTRs (0.60% average, 1.10% top-quartile), mirroring the pattern on Facebook. Hyperlocal targeting keeps relevance high and competitive density lower than national verticals. Top performers are almost always concrete and unpolished: a real photo of the business, a specific price ('$99 tune-up'), and a click-to-call CTA on mobile banners. Agency-produced 'professional' creatives often underperform iPhone-photo versions in this category.
Relative CTR is expressed against the 300×250 baseline. Each size has a different attention geometry — design for each independently to beat the category average.
| Size | Name | Rel. CTR | Inventory |
|---|---|---|---|
| 336 × 280 | Large Rectangle | 1.05× | ~12% of GDN impressions |
| 300 × 250 | Medium Rectangle | 1.00× (baseline) | ~35% of GDN impressions |
| 300 × 600 | Half Page / Large Skyscraper | 0.90× | ~8% of GDN impressions |
| 728 × 90 | Leaderboard | 0.70× | ~18% of GDN impressions |
| 160 × 600 | Wide Skyscraper | 0.65× | ~9% of GDN impressions |
| 320 × 100 | Large Mobile Banner | 0.70× | ~7% of GDN impressions |
| 320 × 50 | Mobile Banner | 0.50× | ~11% of GDN impressions |
Center-dominant. First fixation lands on the largest visual element in the middle third; headline reads second.
Slightly larger than the 300×250 with a modestly better CTR. Limited inventory — not every publisher offers the slot.
The 'mini billboard'. Attention concentrates top-center and center; bottom 20% is under-fixated.
The workhorse of the GDN — highest inventory, highest predictability. Design for a single dominant image with an overlay headline and an obvious CTA.
Top third receives most fixations; bottom third is scrolled past on long pages. CTA placement should be upper-middle, not true bottom.
High-impact placement on premium publishers. Treat like a mini poster with clear vertical hierarchy; avoid cramming content into the bottom half.
Horizontal scan — left-anchored brand/headline and right-anchored CTA matches the natural reading path in Latin-script regions.
Above-the-fold banner slot. Low vertical real estate means text must be bold and short. CTR penalty comes from banner-blindness: viewers have been trained to ignore the top rectangle.
Vertical scan top-to-bottom. Top 30% receives the first fixation; middle holds the value prop; bottom holds the CTA.
Side-rail placement. Narrow width forces stacked typography and a single-column visual. Avoid horizontal layouts — they don't work in 160px width.
Horizontal mobile scan. Attention concentrates on the left 60% in left-to-right reading regions; CTA right-anchors.
Primary mobile placement. Doubled height vs 320×50 gives room for a real visual — use it rather than repurposing desktop banner art.
Almost no vertical space. Essentially a single-line read — headline or logo + CTA.
High-impression, low-CTR placement. Treat as a reach/brand channel, not a performance workhorse. Keep to 3 visual elements max: logo, one-line headline, CTA button.
Display CTR is won at the creative level. Targeting and bidding are largely commoditized across GDN in 2026; the differentiation lives inside the ad frame. These five levers produce the largest CTR lifts in our pre-launch audits of Display creatives.
The single biggest CTR gap between top-quartile and median Display accounts is whether each size is designed to its own attention geometry, or auto-generated from a single master. A 300×250 optimized as a mini-billboard and a 160×600 optimized for vertical scan will outperform responsive display rotations by 30–60% on CTR. Responsive ads save time but routinely land in the bottom quartile.
Banner-blindness is real: viewers have been trained to filter out the visual language of standard display ads. The counter is aggressive CTA contrast — a solid, high-contrast button that reads as a UI element rather than decoration. Think 'download button' rather than 'ad CTA'. A white CTA on a navy hero is often the difference between 0.3% and 0.6% CTR.
In a 300×250 rectangle with ~2 seconds of attention and ~20 words of headline space, abstract benefit claims lose to specific numeric ones. '$49 activation' beats 'affordable plans'. 'Save 40% today' beats 'big savings'. Numerals are preattentively distinct from surrounding text and earn disproportionate fixation.
Most underperforming Display creatives have 3–5 decorative elements that add no information — stars, swooshes, background patterns, secondary graphics. Each one competes for a fixation in a tiny canvas. Strip everything until what remains is: dominant image (or solid background), one headline, one CTA. CTR almost always rises.
Animated Display ads (HTML5, GIF) have ~15 seconds of loop. Most creatives waste that budget on logo reveals and decorative motion. Top-quartile creatives use animation for the value prop or the CTA — a price counting down, a button pulsing, an offer appearing. Motion on the conversion element directly lifts CTR; motion on everything else doesn't.
Shortcut: If you do nothing else, design your 300×250, 728×90, and 160×600 as three independent creatives rather than one responsive asset. That single change is worth 30–60% CTR lift on most Display accounts we've audited.
The cross-industry average for the Google Display Network in 2026 is approximately 0.45% — roughly half the Facebook Feed average. This gap has been consistent for a decade and reflects the fundamentally more passive nature of Display viewing versus social feed scrolling. Industry variance is wide: local services averages 0.60%, insurance averages 0.25%.
A practical rule of thumb: below 0.25% is underperforming for most verticals; 0.4–0.6% is typical; above 0.8% puts you in the top quartile. Use the industry table above to set the right target for your specific category — a 0.5% CTR is excellent in fintech but average in e-commerce.
Three reasons. First, Display ads appear alongside content the viewer came to consume, rather than in a dedicated scroll feed — attention is already allocated elsewhere. Second, banner-blindness is real: viewers have been trained over 25 years to filter out the visual language of standard display formats. Third, Display ads typically have less room for a strong scroll-stopper than a 1:1 social creative. The CPC equation still works because Display CPMs are 70–85% lower than Facebook.
On average, 336×280 (Large Rectangle) has the highest CTR of the major IAB sizes — slightly above the 300×250 baseline. But inventory is limited; not all publishers serve the slot. For reliable performance, the 300×250 Medium Rectangle is the workhorse: largest inventory share (~35% of GDN impressions) and the most consistent CTR across verticals.
Responsive Display Ads (where Google assembles creative from uploaded assets) are convenient but routinely underperform hand-designed fixed-size creatives by 20–40% on CTR. If volume is your constraint, use Responsive. If performance is, design each major size (300×250, 728×90, 160×600, 300×600, 320×50, 320×100) to its own attention geometry. The effort is often a 50%+ CTR lift.
Estimated based on publicly reported benchmarks and industry surveys aggregated in 2026 — WordStream Display reports, Google Ads disclosures, IAB inventory data, and agency-published ranges. Figures are directional and representative of typical accounts, not proprietary measurement. Your own 30-day account data is the better benchmark once you have spend history.
Upload your 300×250, 728×90, or 160×600 and GazeIQ will score it on the five attention dimensions that separate top-quartile Display CTR from the rest. Heatmap, score, and AI recommendations in under 8 seconds.
No credit card required · 3 free scans included