Microsoft Shopping vs Google Shopping: how the two stacks compare for UK retailers

The default assumption and why it deserves scrutiny

For most UK retailers, "Shopping ads" means Google Shopping. It accounts for the overwhelming majority of product listing ad spend and clicks in the UK market. Microsoft Shopping (formerly Bing Shopping) is an afterthought for many performance marketing teams — if it is considered at all.

That default assumption is not wrong, but it is increasingly incomplete. Microsoft's advertising network has grown meaningfully over the past few years, driven by the integration of Shopping ads across Bing, Microsoft Edge, and partner properties. For retailers already running Google Shopping profitably, the question is whether Microsoft Shopping offers enough incremental volume at a reasonable cost to justify the effort.

Here is a side-by-side comparison across the dimensions that actually matter.

Market share and reach

Google dominates UK search with roughly 90-93% market share, depending on which measurement source you prefer. Microsoft's Bing sits at approximately 3-4% of UK search, with additional reach through Yahoo and DuckDuckGo partnerships.

Those headline numbers make Microsoft look marginal, but they obscure some useful detail. Microsoft's audience skews towards desktop users, older demographics, and — critically — users on devices where Bing is the default search engine. That includes every new Windows PC and every Microsoft Edge installation. In corporate environments where IT departments do not change default browsers, Bing's effective share among working professionals can be significantly higher than the overall average.

For a UK retailer selling B2B products, office supplies, or premium goods that index well with an older, higher-income demographic, Microsoft's audience composition may be more relevant than its raw share numbers suggest.

Reach summary

| Metric | Google Shopping | Microsoft Shopping |

|--------|----------------|-------------------|

| UK search share | ~90-93% | ~3-4% (plus partners) |

| Primary surfaces | Google Search, Google Shopping tab, Google Images, YouTube | Bing, Microsoft Edge, Yahoo, DuckDuckGo |

| Audience skew | Broad | Desktop-heavy, older, higher income |

Cost per click

This is where Microsoft becomes interesting. CPCs on Microsoft Shopping are typically 30-50% lower than equivalent Google Shopping CPCs in the UK. The exact differential varies by category, but the pattern is consistent: less competition means lower prices.

For retailers operating on tight margins or in highly competitive categories (fashion, electronics, home and garden), the lower CPC on Microsoft can translate into materially better ROAS — assuming the traffic converts at a comparable rate.

Conversion rates on Microsoft Shopping are generally in the same range as Google, though with smaller sample sizes it takes longer to reach statistical confidence. The audience that arrives via Bing tends to have slightly higher average order values in some categories, which partially offsets the lower volume.

Cost comparison

| Metric | Google Shopping | Microsoft Shopping |

|--------|----------------|-------------------|

| Average CPC (UK, cross-category) | £0.30 - £0.80 | £0.15 - £0.45 |

| Competition level | High | Moderate to low |

| Typical ROAS differential | Baseline | Often 20-40% higher |

These figures are indicative and vary significantly by category. The point is directional: Microsoft Shopping is cheaper, and for many categories, the efficiency is real.

Feed requirements

Both platforms use product feeds based on similar specifications. If you already have a Google Merchant Centre feed, getting it into Microsoft Merchant Centre is straightforward. Microsoft supports direct feed uploads, scheduled fetches, and — conveniently — a Google Merchant Centre import tool that pulls your existing feed and settings across.

The import tool is genuinely useful. It means you can have Microsoft Shopping running within an hour if your Google Shopping setup is already in good shape. It also imports campaign structures, bids, and targeting settings, so you are not rebuilding from scratch.

There are minor differences in feed specification requirements, but for the vast majority of UK retailers, a feed that passes Google's validation will pass Microsoft's with minimal adjustments.

Feed comparison

| Feature | Google Shopping | Microsoft Shopping |

|---------|----------------|-------------------|

| Feed format | XML, TSV, Google Sheets | XML, TSV, or import from Google |

| Merchant centre | Google Merchant Centre | Microsoft Merchant Centre |

| Feed import from competitor | N/A | Yes — direct Google import |

| Feed update frequency | Multiple times daily | Multiple times daily |

The CSS angle

Here is a significant structural difference. Google Shopping in the EEA operates under the Comparison Shopping Service framework established by the 2017 EU antitrust ruling. This means third-party CSS partners can place merchants' products in Google Shopping, often with a margin advantage over Google's own CSS.

Microsoft Shopping has no equivalent CSS framework. There is no third-party intermediary layer. You run Microsoft Shopping campaigns directly through the Microsoft Advertising platform. This is simpler in one sense — fewer parties involved — but it means you do not get the CPC margin benefit that a CSS partner can provide on Google.

For retailers already working with a CSS partner on Google Shopping, this creates an interesting dynamic. Your Google Shopping presence benefits from the CSS margin advantage and potentially from additional coverage provided by the CSS partner. Your Microsoft Shopping presence is a direct relationship with Microsoft, managed by your in-house team or agency.

This does not make one platform better than the other. It means they operate differently and should be managed with different expectations.

Campaign management and features

Google Shopping has a significantly more mature campaign management toolset. Smart Shopping campaigns (now Performance Max), automated bidding strategies, audience layering, and local inventory ads are all well-established features with years of optimisation data behind them.

Microsoft Shopping has been catching up. It now supports automated bidding, audience targeting, and similar campaign types. But the depth of features and the sophistication of the machine learning behind them lags Google by a generation or so. This is not a criticism — it is a reflection of the scale difference. Google processes vastly more Shopping auction data, which means its automated bidding algorithms have more signal to work with.

For retailers who rely heavily on automated bidding, this is worth noting. Your Google campaigns benefit from a richer data environment. Your Microsoft campaigns may need more manual oversight, particularly in the early months before enough conversion data has accumulated.

Should UK retailers run both?

The practical answer for most retailers doing £1 million or more in online revenue: yes, if you have the bandwidth.

Microsoft Shopping is not going to replace Google Shopping. It is not trying to. But it offers genuine incremental volume at lower CPCs, with minimal setup effort if you are already running Google Shopping.

The decision framework is straightforward:

Run Microsoft Shopping if:

• You are already profitable on Google Shopping and want incremental volume
• Your audience skews towards desktop or professional demographics
• You have capacity (in-house or through an agency) to manage a second platform
• You are in a high-CPC category on Google and want cheaper traffic

Deprioritise Microsoft Shopping if:

• You are still optimising your Google Shopping campaigns and they are not yet profitable
• Your product catalogue is very small (under a few hundred SKUs) and the volume from Microsoft would be negligible
• Your team is already stretched and cannot manage an additional platform properly

The combined approach

The strongest position for a UK retailer is to run Google Shopping with a CSS partner (benefiting from the margin advantage and incremental coverage) whilst also running Microsoft Shopping directly for the lower-CPC incremental volume.

This gives you three layers of Shopping coverage:

1. Your in-house Google Shopping campaigns — your core, fully controlled

2. Your CSS partner's Google Shopping activity — filling gaps on a CPA basis

3. Your Microsoft Shopping campaigns — incremental volume at lower CPCs

Each layer operates independently, with different cost structures and different strengths. Together, they maximise your product visibility across the two major Shopping platforms in the UK.

The bottom line

Google Shopping is where the volume is. That will not change in the near term. But Microsoft Shopping is a credible, lower-cost complement that most UK retailers are under-utilising. If you are already running Google Shopping well, adding Microsoft is one of the easier incremental wins available — and one that too few retailers have bothered to pursue.