for Weston Funding
Meta Ads Report · Jun 8 - Jul 7, 2026

The cheapest leads are in Austin.

Over the last 30 days Meta delivered 33 investor leads at a blended $73. Austin carried a third of them at just $32 each, less than half the blended cost, while one video drove nearly half of every lead.

33
Investor leads
Meta lead forms
$73
Blended cost / lead
Lead campaigns only
$2,720
Meta spend
4 markets + engagement
$32
Best market CPL
Austin, less than half blended
Leads are Meta lead-form submissions. Blended cost per lead covers the four Website Leads campaigns; the IG Profile Visits engagement campaign is shown separately and excluded from cost per lead.
The story

Three numbers that tell it.

Low volume, high value. Hard-money leads are few but each is a real investor deal, so the read is about where the cheap leads are and what creative earns them.

01
$32 / lead

Austin is the engine

Austin posted a $32 cost per lead, less than half the blended $73 and a quarter of DFW and Houston. Same offer, far better economics.

02
16

One video carries

The "We funded 100%" page-post video drove 16 of the 33 leads at a $27 cost per lead. That is the message the market responds to.

03
33

Few leads, real deals

Hard-money borrowers are a narrow audience, so cost per lead runs higher than consumer lead-gen. Each of these 33 is a funded-loan opportunity.

Meta Ads

Leads & spend day by day.

Daily lead volume against daily spend. Volume is naturally spiky at this deal size; the goal is steady flow at a cost per lead the pipeline can close on.

Leads & spend per day

Leads Daily spend
Window total 33 leadsBest day 7 leadsTop video = 48% of leadsShaded band = latest 7 days
Market split

Where the leads came from.

Spend and leads by market over the window. Austin is marked as the efficiency leader; the IG Profile Visits campaign is engagement support and does not carry lead goals.

DFW 6 leads · $124 CPL
$741
Houston 6 leads · $116 CPL
$697
Austin 16 leads · $32 CPL
$507
San Antonio 5 leads · $91 CPL
$455
CampaignSpendLeadsCost / leadCTRCPC
NZ 01 - Website Leads - Austin Best CPL
$50716$322.63%$3.70
NZ 01 - Website Leads - Houston$6976$1163.52%$3.79
NZ 01 - Website Leads - DFW$7416$1242.35%$4.49
NZ 01 - Website Leads - San Antonio$4555$912.93%$3.04
NZ 01 - IG Profile Visits Engagement$3200n/a3.33%$0.54
Blended lead total$2,40033$73--
Top performing creative

The ads doing the work.

The three creatives earning leads this window, ranked by lead volume. The page-post video at the top is carrying the account.

What's next

Where we take it from here.

Each move ties back to what this window proved.

Primary move

Shift budget to Austin and the winning video.

Austin's $32 cost per lead and the "We funded 100%" video are the two clear winners. We weight spend toward both while holding DFW and Houston to prove their cost per lead can come down.

What we do
Step Austin budget up; expand the winning video to more placements.
Evidence
$32 vs $73 blended CPL; one video = 48% of leads.
Risk
Austin volume is capped by market size; we watch CPL as we scale.
We need
Your read on lead quality by market.
Operating plan

The next window.

  • Cut or fix DFW and Houston - both sit above $115 per lead on solid CTR, so the leak is likely audience or landing page, not creative.
  • Build variations of the "We funded 100%" video so results do not lean on one asset.
  • Test the Sizer tool as a lead magnet to lower cost per lead and pre-qualify borrowers.
  • Review lead quality together so we optimize toward funded loans, not just form fills.
The next chapter

Now we scale it.

We push Austin and the winning video, fix the two expensive markets, and bring you a fresh read each window. Tell us how the leads land in your pipeline and we steer toward the deals you want to fund.

Talk through the plan