Case study: 3 setups tested at €150/day and what each one delivered

Ricardo Lemos · 2026-10-07

Setup a: 5 interests ABO

Setup: I created 5 ad sets, each with a specific interest. Each interest was chosen based on demographic and behavioral data relevant to the target audience.
Metrics:
Total Spend: 1.050 € (7 days)
Conversions: 35
CPC (Cost per Click): 0,80 €
ROAS (Return on Ad Spend): 3,5x
Analysis: This setup made it possible to target the audience more effectively and identify which interests were driving better results. However, performance varied quite a bit across interests, which requires constant adjustments.

Setup: I used a broad CBO campaign, allowing the algorithm to optimize budget distribution across the ad sets.
Metrics:
Total Spend: 1.050 € (7 days)
Conversions: 50

ROAS: 4x
Analysis: The CBO approach proved effective for taking advantage of the best opportunities in real time. With a single ad set, the optimization focus was more direct, resulting in better conversion performance.

Setup: I launched a dynamic ads campaign, allowing creatives and audience targeting to rotate automatically.
Metrics:
Total Spend: 1.050 € (7 days)
Conversions: 40

ROAS: 3,8x
Analysis: The ASC setup brought flexibility and adaptability, but it didn’t outperform the CBO setup in terms of efficiency. The variety of creatives helped keep the audience engaged.

Setup A is ideal if you already have a good idea of which interests convert, but it requires more hands-on management.
Setup B is the one to choose when the goal is to maximize conversions with an optimized budget, taking advantage of the algorithm’s intelligence.
Setup C is useful for testing different creatives and audiences simultaneously, but it may take more time to analyze the results.

Which of these setups have you tested, and what was your ROAS?