This field record is a companion to the account-level creative spend concentration study. Account-level totals can mix dissimilar campaign types. Here the unit is the ad set: among each account’s highest-spending ad sets that still run multiple named creatives, how is spend typically split between the top ad, the second ad, and everything else?

Across 103 qualifying Meta ad sets (top-3 by spend per account, each with ≥4 unique ad names) from clients sampled of various industries in August 2026, the unweighted mean spend share is 46.7% on the #1 ad-name creative, 18.5% on the #2 creative, and 34.8% on the remaining creatives combined (top-2 cumulative = 65.2%). Medians are close (44.5% / 17.7% / 35.7%). Rank-2 shares are especially tight (IQR 14–20%), suggesting a familiar within-adset budget pattern rather than account-wide campaign mix alone.

Sample

The asset set is dataset EMR-2026-09B, drawn from the same August 2026 account sample as EMR-2026-09. For each of 41 accounts, the three highest-spending ad sets were identified; ad sets with fewer than four unique normalized ad names were dropped (20 of 123 top ad sets). The remaining 103 ad sets span all 41 accounts. Clients sampled of various industries. Mean creatives per qualifying ad set: 28 (median 21).

Method

Creatives are defined by normalized ad name within an ad set (case-insensitive; names containing - copy collapse to the non-copy base). Spend is summed by that key inside the ad set. Shares are rank 1, rank 2 (solo), top-2 cumulative, and the remainder after top 2. Primary results average those shares equally across ad sets; medians and spend-weighted means are reported for robustness. Campaign structure outside the ad set is ignored.

Findings

Inside competitive multi-creative ad sets, Meta’s delivery commonly concentrates nearly half of spend on a single named winner, about one-fifth on the runner-up, and about one-third across the long tail of other creatives in that ad set. The approximate mean ratio is 47 : 19 : 35 (top : #2 : rest). Compared with account-level concentration in EMR-2026-09—where the single top creative was only ~17% of account spend—the within-adset pattern shows much sharper winner-take-most dynamics once the unit is a single delivery container with several creatives competing.

Inside an ad set, one creative takes nearly half

Share of spend going to the top-spending creative, Meta, August 2026

Inside a top ad set#1 creative 46.7%18.5%All others 34.8%Across the account16.8%All others 83.2%

Note: Ad sets are each account's three highest-spending ad sets with at least four named creatives. The ratio is roughly 47 : 19 : 35.

Source: Darwin IQ Labs, datasets EMR-2026-09B (ad sets) and EMR-2026-09 (accounts) · Unweighted means · Clients sampled of various industries

Rank-2 consistency (IQR roughly 14–20%) is stronger than rank-1 (IQR roughly 33–60%), so “second place near one-fifth” is a more stable rule of thumb than the exact winner share.

Second place is the steadiest number

Range of spend share for the #1 and #2 creatives across ad sets

Middle half of ad setsMedian0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%#1 creative27-point spread33%60%median 44.5%#2 creative6-point spread14%20%median 17.7%

Source: Darwin IQ Labs, dataset EMR-2026-09B · Middle half = interquartile range across ad sets

What this record does not claim

  • No creative-level file, account list, brand identifiers, or raw ad/ad-set names are released with EMR-2026-09B.
  • Ad-name identity is a naming proxy, not a pixel-hash match.
  • The pattern is observational inside top ad sets with ≥4 creatives; it is not a causal model of auction allocation and does not prescribe how many creatives to run.