Benchmarks matter in solar leads generation. When a provider quotes you a conversion rate or a cost per lead, you need context to know whether that number is strong, average, or a red flag. The problem is that most publicly available UK solar data either predates the post-ECO4 market shift or is published by aggregators with an interest in making their leads look better than they perform.
This case study draws on ImperioLeads campaign data from H1 2026 across UK solar leads programmes targeting the private homeowner market. It covers cost per lead by campaign type, conversion rates by lead quality tier, cost per acquisition outcomes, and how performance changed as the ECO4 transition reshaped the homeowner audience in the first half of the year. The data is designed to give solar companies a realistic performance reference before they commit budget to any lead generation programme.
All figures represent aggregated performance across multiple UK solar clients. Individual campaign results vary based on sales team quality, follow-up speed, geographic focus, and sales process strength. These figures are honest benchmarks, not marketing projections.
Solar Leads Campaign Context: What Changed in H1 2026
The first half of 2026 was structurally different from any prior period in UK solar lead generation. Three concurrent forces reshaped the homeowner audience and, consequently, lead performance:
ECO4 wind-down and the Warm Homes Plan launch. The ECO4 scheme officially wound down for new applications from March 2026, with a transitional period running to December 2026. The Warm Homes Plan launched in January 2026 but delivered slowly through local authorities. This created a short-term perception gap: many homeowners who'd heard about solar grants were uncertain what was still available. Campaigns that led with grant messaging saw lead quality decline sharply. Campaigns that led with financial ROI messaging improved in both volume and conversion quality.
April 2026 electricity price cap adjustment. The April 2026 price cap maintained unit rates in the 25–28p/kWh range for most households, keeping the financial case for solar compelling. Homeowner urgency around energy bills remained elevated, supporting strong lead volume across all campaign types.
Growing battery storage attachment. MCS recorded over 40,000 certified home battery installations in 2025, almost doubling the previous annual record, and this trajectory continued into H1 2026. Solar leads expressing interest in battery storage became a distinct, higher-performing cohort within our campaigns, with materially different conversion economics from panels-only enquiries.
Cost Per Lead Performance: H1 2026 by Campaign Type
| Campaign Type | Average CPL (£) | CPL Range (£) | Lead Volume per Month | vs H1 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusive, financial ROI creative, Meta | £28 | £21–£38 | Medium (50–150) | +11% CPL, higher quality |
| Exclusive, solar+battery creative, Meta | £34 | £26–£48 | Medium (40–120) | New category, growing fast |
| Shared, real-time, Meta + Google | £9 | £6–£14 | High (200–500+) | Stable CPL, lower intent quality |
| Retargeting (warm audiences, Meta) | £14 | £10–£20 | Low-medium (30–80) | Best CPL-to-quality ratio |
| Grant-led creative (ECO4 language) | £11 | £7–£16 | High but declining | CPL fell, quality collapsed |
The most significant finding in the CPL data is the divergence between campaigns using grant-led messaging and those using financial ROI messaging. Grant-led creative generated leads at a lower cost per lead but produced conversion rates below 1% in H1 2026, as the audience attracted was increasingly made up of homeowners seeking free or heavily subsidised installations that were no longer available at scale. These leads consumed significant sales team time in disqualification conversations before the team could identify whether any genuine self-funded intent existed.
ROI-led campaigns cost more per lead but produced a fundamentally different prospect: a homeowner who had already accepted that an investment was required and was evaluating whether the return justified the outlay. That framing change alone is worth 8–10 percentage points of conversion rate difference.
Conversion Rate Data: From Lead to Customer
Conversion rate is where the real economics of solar lead generation are decided. The following solar leads data represents conversion from lead receipt to signed installation agreement, not from lead to appointment or from appointment to quote.
| Lead Type | Avg Conversion Rate | Contact Rate (answer within 3 attempts) | Survey-to-Close Rate | Avg Days Lead to Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusive solar+battery, called within 15 min | 14% | 74% | 68% | 9 days |
| Exclusive panels-only, called within 15 min | 10% | 71% | 58% | 14 days |
| Exclusive panels-only, called within 24 hours | 6% | 58% | 52% | 18 days |
| Shared real-time leads, ROI creative | 4% | 52% | 44% | 22 days |
| Shared real-time leads, grant creative | 0.8% | 41% | 27% | 31 days |
| Retargeting leads, warm audience | 11% | 69% | 61% | 11 days |
Several patterns stand out in this conversion data.
Call speed is the single largest operational variable within a solar company's control. The same lead type called within 15 minutes versus within 24 hours shows a 40% drop in conversion rate (10% down to 6%). This is not a marginal effect. For a company buying 100 exclusive leads at £28 each, the difference between calling within 15 minutes and calling within 24 hours is the difference between 10 customers and 6 customers from the same £2,800 spend. That's £16,000 in additional revenue from the same investment, achieved purely through operational speed.
Solar-plus-battery leads convert faster and at higher rates. The 14% conversion rate for exclusive battery-inclusive leads versus 10% for panels-only reflects a fundamental difference in prospect motivation and readiness. Battery interest signals a homeowner who has done more research, understands the broader energy independence proposition, and is further along the decision journey at point of contact. These leads also close in an average of 9 days versus 14, reducing pipeline uncertainty and improving cash flow predictability.
Grant-creative shared leads are the worst-performing category in 2026. The 0.8% conversion rate on shared leads from grant-led creative represents an effective cost per acquisition of over £1,375 at a £11 CPL. That number makes the economics of cheap leads in 2026 look terrible even before accounting for the sales team time consumed.
Cost Per Acquisition: The Number That Actually Matters
With CPL and conversion rate data established, cost per acquisition (CPA) is the metric that determines whether a solar leads programme is profitable. The table below applies the conversion rates above to realistic cost scenarios.
| Lead Type | CPL (£) | Conversion Rate | Cost Per Acquisition (£) | Revenue per Install (£) | Gross ROI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusive solar+battery, fast follow-up | £34 | 14% | £243 | £11,500 | 4,633% |
| Exclusive panels-only, fast follow-up | £28 | 10% | £280 | £7,500 | 2,579% |
| Exclusive panels-only, slow follow-up | £28 | 6% | £467 | £7,500 | 1,506% |
| Retargeting leads | £14 | 11% | £127 | £7,500 | 5,806% |
| Shared ROI-creative leads | £9 | 4% | £225 | £7,500 | 3,233% |
| Shared grant-creative leads | £11 | 0.8% | £1,375 | £7,500 | 445% |
The gross ROI figures above do not account for operational costs (sales staff, survey costs, dialler infrastructure, CRM, management overhead), which typically reduce gross ROI by 30–50% depending on company structure. The target for a sustainably profitable UK solar company in 2026 is a net ROI of 400–600% after operational costs.
The retargeting category shows the best gross CPA at £127, which reflects the fact that these leads have already demonstrated intent through prior engagement with your content. The cost to generate them is low because you're not paying for cold audience prospecting, and conversion is high because the prospect is already familiar with your brand and value proposition. The constraint is volume: retargeting audiences are limited by the size of your existing warm audience pool, which is itself a function of cold-prospecting campaign scale.
Geographic Variation: Where CPL and Conversion Differed
Post-ECO4 lead performance varied meaningfully by geography across UK campaigns in H1 2026. The Southeast (excluding inner London) and East Anglia consistently produced the best combination of CPL efficiency and conversion rate. These regions combine high solar suitability (south-facing roofs, limited shading, strong irradiance), above-average household income, high EV ownership rates, and dense existing solar installation, which creates the neighbourhood contagion effect that drives organic urgency.
Inner London remained challenging due to property type mix (high proportion of flats with no viable roof access), planning complexity in conservation areas, and lower homeownership rates. Cost per lead in inner London ran 25–35% higher than in the Southeast for equivalent campaign types, with lower conversion rates due to a higher proportion of leads from non-homeowners or unsuitable properties slipping through audience targeting.
Scotland showed improving performance through H1 2026, partly driven by the Home Energy Scotland scheme providing supplementary support for qualifying households and partly by growing media coverage of energy costs north of the border. CPL in Scotland ran slightly above the national average, but conversion rates were comparable to the English regions when campaigns used financially-framed messaging appropriately calibrated to Scottish electricity pricing dynamics.
What This Solar Leads Data Tells You About Your Own Programme
The most useful application of this benchmarking data is as a diagnostic tool. If your current solar leads programme is materially underperforming these benchmarks, the gap usually points to one of three causes.
Lead quality mismatch. If your conversion rate is below 4% on exclusive leads, the leads themselves may be lower quality than advertised, or your campaigns may still be attracting grant-seeking rather than financially-motivated prospects. Review the creative and qualification criteria on your current lead sources.
Follow-up speed. If your contact rate is below 55% on fresh exclusive leads, you have a speed problem. The conversion rate data above shows clearly how much revenue is left on the table by slow follow-up. This is fixable within days with the right CRM automation.
Sales process mismatch. If your survey-to-close rate is below 40%, the issue is usually in the sales conversation rather than the lead quality. Sales teams trained on the ECO4 grant model often struggle with financially-motivated prospects because they default to eligibility conversations rather than ROI conversations. Retraining on the financial case, payback periods, VAT timing, and battery economics usually shows results within 2–4 weeks.
The post-ECO4 market rewards solar companies that generate the right leads and convert them with the right approach. As competition for homeowner attention grows, UK solar leads are getting more expensive, and understanding your CPA benchmarks is the only way to stay profitable as costs rise. The data above defines what "right" looks like in 2026. If your numbers are weaker, the gap is the opportunity.
Want to benchmark your current solar lead programme against these figures? ImperioLeads works with UK solar companies to audit acquisition economics, identify performance gaps, and build campaigns calibrated to 2026 conversion benchmarks.
