The two options carry different risks, different cash profiles and different failure modes. A structured comparison rather than a recommendation.
Figures in this article describe the wider market and are drawn from the third-party sources listed at the end. They are not Lead Foundry results, and nothing here is a projection of what any individual broker will achieve.
The choice is usually framed as which is better value. It is more useful framed as which risk you would rather carry, because that is the actual difference.
| An agency | Bought enquiries | |
|---|---|---|
| What you pay for | The attempt to generate enquiry | An enquiry that exists |
| Who carries generation risk | You | The supplier |
| Cash profile | Fixed retainer, front-loaded | Variable, stoppable in a week |
| Time to first enquiry | Weeks to months | Days |
| What you own afterwards | Pages, audience, and search position | Nothing beyond the records |
| Main failure mode | Spend with nothing to show | Dependency, and a rising unit price |
The fifth row is the strongest argument for an agency and the one that takes longest to pay. The second row is the strongest argument for buying and pays immediately.
The second point is doing a lot of work. WordStream's 2026 benchmarks put Finance and Insurance at a 2.64% conversion rate, the lowest of any category measured, which is the environment an agency has to build in.
The sequencing most small firms get right: Buy first to establish that your process converts, then build owned demand once you know the conversion side works. Building demand into a broken process is the expensive order.
The same thing. If your median time to first attempt is measured in hours, or your average attempts per lead is near two, neither option helps. An agency will generate enquiries that go unworked and a supplier will deliver records that go unworked, and both will be blamed.
Given that half of purchased leads are never called a second time, and 93% of converted leads are reached by the sixth attempt, the process question is usually larger than the channel question.
Yes, and most established firms eventually do, because they solve different problems. Bought supply sets a floor you control weekly. Owned demand compounds and lowers blended acquisition cost over years.
The risk of running both too early is capacity: two channels feeding one adviser produces the same overload as one channel bought too aggressively.
It depends which risk you would rather carry. With an agency you pay for the attempt to generate enquiry and carry the risk it produces nothing, while building an asset you keep. With bought leads you pay only for enquiries that exist and carry dependency risk instead. Buying returns flow in days; an agency takes weeks to months.
It is a different cost shape rather than reliably cheaper. Lead spend is variable and can be stopped in a week; an agency retainer is fixed and front-loaded and buys an asset that keeps working afterwards. Over several years owned demand usually lowers blended acquisition cost, and it returns nothing for the first stretch.
Usually buy supply first, to establish that the conversion process works, then build owned demand once it does. Building demand into a broken process is the expensive order, because the enquiries arrive and go unworked and the channel takes the blame for a capacity problem.
Neither will. If your median time to first attempt is measured in hours or your average attempts per lead is near two, both options deliver enquiries that go unworked. Research shows half of purchased leads are never called a second time and 93% of converted leads are reached by the sixth attempt, so the process question is usually larger than the channel question.