+55%
Meta-reported ROAS
-26%
Cost per purchase
+53%
Reported purchase value
What to take from these results
The two campaigns ran in the same September 22 to 27 window and spend differed by 1.4%.
The full story
This established ecommerce brand asked to keep its name private. The account result can still speak clearly.
The team compared two Meta campaigns over the same six-day window. One used the account’s principal pixel. The other used a pixel connected through Bily.
Spend was nearly identical. The campaign using Bily recorded 55% higher Meta ROAS, 26% lower cost per purchase, and 53% more reported purchase value.
Nearly equal spend made the result easy to read
The principal-pixel campaign spent €1,553.10. The Bily campaign spent €1,531.67. That is a difference of just 1.4%.
With the media investment so close, the team could compare what each campaign row produced inside Meta instead of explaining away a large budget gap.
The Bily campaign finished ahead across the funnel
Meta reported 2.15 ROAS with Bily versus 1.39 on the principal pixel. Cost per purchase was €42.55 versus €57.52, and reported purchase value reached €3,297.41 versus €2,162.51.
The supporting metrics moved in the same direction. CPC was €0.39 versus €0.91, CPM was €10.57 versus €12.61, CTR was 2.68% versus 1.38%, and average order value was 91.59 versus 80.09.
What this shows about Bily
Bily can be tested as its own conversion signal path. In this account, the campaign using Bily recorded stronger purchase economics at almost the same spend.
That gives a growth team something concrete to act on. It can compare the signal paths under real campaign conditions and let the commercial result shape the next budget decision.
Results reflect the brand’s preserved September 22 to 27 Meta comparison and platform reporting rules. Performance varies by brand, offer, market, campaign mix, and media strategy.
More customer stories