Based on the SearchLight Garage Door Advertising Benchmark, tracking $661,396 in observed Google Ads spend across 11 garage door contractors from January through April 2026, the spend-weighted blended ROAS for garage door advertisers is 3.51x, with top-quartile advertisers exceeding 11.37x. These figures reflect blended performance across both branded and non-branded campaigns and are weighted by spend for accuracy.
While Google Ads captures explicit, high-intent demand from users actively searching for garage door services, many contractors also invest in Google Local Services Ads (LSA), which operate differently and produce a distinct ROAS profile. For garage door specifically, LSA delivers a 5.78x closed ROAS at roughly one-third the CPL of Google Ads — a meaningful difference that should inform channel mix. See:
What Is a Good Cost Per Lead for Garage Door Google Local Service Ads?
This page summarizes spend-weighted ROAS benchmarks based on $661K in Google Ads spend from 11 garage door contractors over a four-month observation window.
Key Garage Door Google Ads ROAS Benchmarks (2026)
- Median ROAS: 2.90x
- Top Quartile ROAS: 11.37x
- Bottom Quartile ROAS: 2.08x
- Spend-Weighted ROAS: 3.51x
The median monthly Google Ads spend among garage door contractors in this dataset was $5,486.
Garage Door Google Ads Blended ROAS Benchmarks Table (Jan–Apr 2026)
| Metric | ROAS (x) | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Spend-Weighted ROAS | 3.51x | Overall benchmark across all garage door spend |
| Median ROAS | 2.90x | Median advertiser performance |
| Top Quartile ROAS | 11.37x | High-performing advertisers; mix-driven |
| Bottom Quartile ROAS | 2.08x | Underperforming or replacement-heavy advertisers |
| Median Monthly Spend | $5,486 | Typical budget across 11 advertisers |
Non-Branded Campaign Benchmarks Table (Jan–Apr 2026)
| Metric | ROAS (x) | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Median Non-Brand ROAS | 2.90x | True competitive acquisition |
| Top-Quartile Non-Brand ROAS | 4.33x | Best-in-class non-brand performance |
| Bottom-Quartile Non-Brand ROAS | 2.04x | Underperforming advertisers |
| Spend-Weighted Non-Brand ROAS | 3.03x | Reflects revenue contribution |
| % of Total Spend | 92.9% | Vast majority of garage door Google Ads budgets |
Branded Campaign Benchmarks Table (Jan–Apr 2026)
| Metric | ROAS (x) | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Spend-Weighted Branded ROAS | 7.00x | Captures existing brand demand |
| % of Total Spend | 6.9% | Branded volume limited by market awareness |
Branded campaign data is heavily concentrated in a small number of advertisers in this dataset. Quartile distributions for branded ROAS are not reported because the qualifying sample is too small to produce statistically meaningful results.
Branded vs. Non-Branded ROAS Benchmarks
Branded search consistently generates higher ROAS because it captures users explicitly searching for a contractor by name. Non-branded campaigns reflect real customer acquisition and are therefore more competitive and more expensive per lead.
Across all garage door Google Ads campaigns analyzed:
Non-Branded Campaigns
- Median ROAS: 2.90x
- Top-Quartile ROAS: 4.33x
- Spend-Weighted ROAS: 3.03x
Branded Campaigns
- Spend-Weighted ROAS: 7.00x
Despite their strong performance, branded campaigns accounted for only 6.9% of total Google Ads spend, while 92.9% went to non-branded campaigns. As a result, non-brand performance is the primary driver of blended ROAS for garage door advertisers.
Why we use blended ROAS as our top-level benchmark
Blended ROAS mirrors how garage door contractors actually allocate budget. Both branded and non-branded campaigns contribute to revenue, and most garage door advertisers run a mix of both.
How to Interpret These Benchmarks
These benchmarks are not a target, but they can serve your business and your vendors well as a reference point.
Use it this way:
- Below 2.08x (bottom quartile) Typically indicates a structural issue: attribution gaps, poor call handling, low-intent keywords, or a service mix overweighted toward long-cycle replacement work without offsetting brand or maintenance revenue.
- Between ~2.1x and ~4.3x (middle quartiles) Common range for mid-maturity garage door advertisers with stable operations and a balanced repair-and-replace mix.
- Above 4.3x (top quartile) Usually reflects strong brand campaigns, an emergency-repair-heavy mix, exceptional CSR speed-to-answer, well-segmented campaigns, or commercial / multi-trade work flowing through Google Ads attribution.
Context Matters
Some garage door businesses can profitably operate at lower ROAS, including:
- Install-heavy markets
- Markets with high average ticket sizes ($2,500+)
- Businesses with strong maintenance plan attachment
- Multi-service contractors blending garage door with adjacent trades
ROAS should always be evaluated relative to CAC, gross margin, and average job value, not in isolation.
How Garage Door Compares to HVAC and Roofing on Google Ads ROAS
| Trade | Spend-Weighted ROAS | Sample |
|---|---|---|
| HVAC | 2.95x (non-brand) / 4.37x (median blended) | 1,041 contractors, $40M spend |
| Garage Door | 3.03x (non-brand) / 3.51x (blended) | 11 contractors, $661K spend |
| Roofing | 2.07x (non-brand) | 15 contractors, $310K spend |
Garage door’s blended ROAS lands between roofing and HVAC. On a non-branded basis specifically, garage door ($3.03x) is very close to HVAC ($2.95x).
The two trades have similar customer acquisition economics on Google Ads even though average tickets and service mixes differ substantially. Garage door’s relatively higher repair share offsets its lower average ticket.
Data Source
Source: SearchLight Garage Door Advertising Benchmark
Sample Size: 11 garage door contractors
Total Spend Analyzed: $661,396 (four months)
Time Window: January 1 – April 30, 2026
Closed Revenue Tracked: $2,319,726
Average Ticket: $1,391
Methodology:
- Spend-weighted and account-level calculations
- SearchLight tracked and platform-reported conversions (Google Ads + offline conversions where available)
- Brand vs. non-brand classification applied at the individual campaign level using each account’s campaign naming conventions
- Account-level distribution metrics exclude one advertiser with $3,910 in spend and no CRM-attributed paying customers (almost certainly an attribution tracking gap rather than zero true performance)
- Spend-weighted figures reflect all observed spend
Concentration note: One account in this dataset represents approximately 53% of total Google Ads spend, and the top three accounts account for approximately 80%. Account-level quartile distributions are reported alongside spend-weighted figures to provide a more complete view of typical advertiser performance.
This benchmark will be updated as more garage door contractors join the SearchLight platform. Check back for expanded data.
FAQs
What is considered a ‘bad’ ROAS for garage door Google Ads?
Anything below 2.08x (the bottom quartile) is underperforming compared to the broader garage door market and often indicates issues with search term quality, lead handling, or attribution tracking. From a financial standpoint, a garage door business operating at 25% EBITDA margins generally needs roughly a 4.0x ROAS to break even on Google Ads on a single-job basis. Contractors with strong maintenance attachment, repeat business, or referral revenue can sustain lower headline ROAS because their effective customer LTV is higher than the first-job revenue captured in the ROAS calculation.
Is garage door Google Ads ROAS seasonal?
Yes. ROAS tends to improve from winter through spring as repair and replacement demand picks up. In this dataset, closed ROAS rose from 2.92x in January to 4.23x in April, a 45% improvement across four months. Contractors who maintain consistent ad spend through winter capture the seasonal lift in Q2.
Does branded ROAS count?
Yes. Blended ROAS is the standard reported in this benchmark because it reflects real budget allocation and actual return on total marketing investment. Branded campaigns produced 7.00x ROAS for garage door advertisers — substantially higher than non-branded — but accounted for only 6.9% of total spend. Contractors not running branded campaigns are leaving high-ROAS volume on the table.
Why is garage door Google Ads ROAS lower than LSA ROAS?
In this dataset, garage door Google Ads produced 3.51x closed ROAS while garage door LSA produced 5.78x closed ROAS across roughly the same set of contractors. The gap is driven by lead cost (LSA is roughly 3x cheaper per lead than non-branded Google Ads) and conversion mix (LSA is weighted more heavily toward fast-converting service and repair calls). Most garage door contractors should treat LSA as the primary paid acquisition channel and Google Ads as a complement for inventory LSA can’t reach.
How does garage door Google Ads ROAS compare to HVAC?
On a non-branded basis, garage door and HVAC produce very similar Google Ads ROAS (3.03x vs 2.95x). HVAC’s higher median ROAS (4.37x vs 2.90x) is driven primarily by branded campaign volume — HVAC contractors run more brand campaigns at higher ROAS because of greater consumer brand awareness for established HVAC businesses.
Last Updated: May 2026