Text Us Start Here
GOOGLE ADS Fintech · Australia Wide

How a Fintech Outranked the Banks on a Fraction of the Budget

Fixed tracking first, won on relevance and Quality Score, then concentrated budget on high intent searches that actually converted.

Get a Free Audit →In this case study
  • 0Lower cost per acquisition
  • 0Impression share on core terms
  • 0Competitor ad spend vs ours
01

The Challenge

A fintech offering a financial product to customers Australia wide was competing for search attention against the biggest, best funded advertisers in the country. The major banks. Those incumbents were spending four to six times the fintech's entire ad budget on the same keywords. On paper, it was a fight the challenger could not win.

The existing account was bleeding money. Broad keywords, weak targeting and conversion tracking that counted the wrong actions, so every customer cost a fortune and nobody could tell what was actually working.

Where they started

High cost per acquisition, low quality enquiries, broken conversion tracking and almost no visibility against the banks on the terms that mattered.

02

What We Did

We could not outspend the banks, so we out structured them.

  1. Fixed the tracking first

    We found conversion tracking firing on the wrong actions, so the data was lying about what worked. We rebuilt it to measure real customer acquisitions, not vanity clicks. A common mistake is scaling spend before fixing tracking, which just buys more bad data, faster.

  2. Won on relevance, not budget

    We tightened ad relevance and landing page match to lift Quality Score, which lowers what you pay for the same position. Better relevance meant we paid less per click than far bigger spenders for the same real estate.

  3. Concentrated the fire

    Instead of spreading thin across every term like the banks, we focused budget on the high intent searches that actually converted and let real conversion data decide where to push and where to pull back.

The principle

In a paid auction, the winner is rarely whoever spends the most. It is whoever wastes the least. Relevance and intent beat raw budget, even against the banks.

03

The Results

The fintech took roughly 80% impression share on its core terms, dominating the search results against banks spending four to six times more. At the same time, cost per acquisition dropped by 90% and the customers coming through were the right ones.

MetricBeforeAfter
Cost per acquisitionHigh and rising90% lower
Impression share (core terms)MinimalAround 80%
Competitor ad spend vs ours4x to 6x higherStill outranked them
Conversion trackingFiring on wrong actionsMeasuring real acquisitions
04

Key takeaways

  • You do not need the biggest budget to win paid search.

    You need the most relevant, best tracked account.

  • Quality Score is leverage.

    Higher relevance means you pay less than bigger spenders for the same position.

  • Fix measurement before you scale.

    Most expensive accounts are a tracking and targeting problem, not a budget problem.

  • David can beat Goliath in the auction.

    Incumbents spending four to six times more still lost the share that mattered.

Notes Client anonymised at their request. Competitors referred to generically as major banks, none are named. Metrics are real and indicative of this engagement. Results vary by industry, competition and starting point. Delivered by the team now at Elev8d.

More Case Studies

View all →
The next step

Outspent doesn't mean outranked.

This fintech beat banks spending four to six times more. If your Google Ads budget feels small compared to competitors, the problem is almost never budget. Let us look at your account and show you where relevance can do what raw spend cannot.

Prefer to text? Message us on 0494 740 873 and we will reply the same day.
Get My Free Campaign Audit →