CBO vs ABO: How We Actually Use Both

ABO vs CBO is not a debate.
It's a test.

Use ABO to find what works.

Switch to CBO to scale what works.

That's it.

(I should end this issue right here.)

But there's a layer most guides skip, especially for accounts running multiple products.
Here's how we actually use both at the agency.

ABO (Ad Set Budget Optimization) you set the budget manually at the ad set level.
Each ad set gets exactly what you give it.
The algorithm has no say in the split.

CBO, now called Advantage Campaign Budget: you set one budget at the campaign level. Meta's AI shifts spend in real-time toward whichever ad set is performing best.

Both have their place. Neither is universally better.

Testing phase. Any time you're running new creatives, new audiences, or anything unproven.

ABO gives each ad set an equal shot.

No ad set gets starved. You get clean data.

Niche targeting. If you're running high-ticket or margin-sensitive products where you need strict control over profitability, ABO keeps each audience accountable.

You decide what's worth spending on.

Discovery. Before you scale anything, you need to know what works.
ABO is how you find out.

Scaling. Once you have proven creative and validated audiences, CBO is more efficient.
Meta finds the cheapest conversions across your ad sets without you touching it daily.

Broad targeting. When you're running multiple ad sets on broad or lookalike audiences, CBO lets the algorithm identify the pockets of attention that convert.

It's good at this when it has enough data to work with.

Saving time. If you've already done the discovery work, CBO handles the real-time budget shifts for you.

At the agency, almost all prospecting (cold) campaigns run on ABO.

The reason: we treat each product as its own business.

Different margins. Different price points. Different audiences.

You can't put all your products into one CBO campaign and expect the algorithm to respect those differences.

It doesn't. It finds what converts cheapest and sends budget there.

Your high-margin product might get starved in favor of a lower-ticket item that just has a better CTR and conversion rate.

The audiences are also genuinely different.

Here’s an example from our home & garden DTC brand:

Product A: A greenhouse targets women in their 40s who grow their own vegetables.

Product B: A metal shed targets men who want to keep their tools safe.

Same e-commerce store. Completely different buyers.

If you put both in one campaign, Meta picks one and runs with it.

ABO keeps each product (each "business"), separate and measurable.

This works especially well for smaller accounts, in my experience.

You don't need a big budget to run it.

Launch a prospecting ABO campaign for each product.

See what performs.

When a product starts converting, you scale that ad set.

Every two weeks, add fresh creatives to the winner.

That's the whole system.

No CBO needed until you're ready to scale beyond what ABO can handle.

We only use CBO in re-marketing campaigns with catalog ads. Check out DAS #120 - Why your remarketing belongs in a separate campaign.

The hybrid approach is useful for accounts spending 10K+ per month.

At higher spend levels, the full hybrid makes sense.

You have enough budget to run prospecting, re-marketing, and scaling at the same time — without them competing with each other.

Step 1: ABO on cold traffic. Test creatives and audiences per product. Find your winners.

Step 2: Move proven performers into a CBO campaign. Let Meta optimize the budget across the winners.

Step 3: Run re-marketing separately.

ABO is the lab. CBO is the factory. Remarketing is the follow-up.

Below 10K a month, this full structure is usually overkill.

Stick with ABO prospecting per product and a separate remarketing campaign.

That's enough.

The debate about CBO vs ABO is mostly noise.

The real question is: do you know what's actually working?

If not, run ABO until you do. Then let CBO scale it.

TLDR