Meta view-through conversions vs your count

A view leaves no trace

Someone sees your ad on Instagram and scrolls on. A few hours later they search for your name, then buy or request a quote.

Meta can count that sale or lead as its own. Your site saw a visit from a search, with nothing in it that points to Meta.

That is a view-through conversion. It may well be Meta's: Meta knows who saw the ad. A script on your site cannot.

Meta's 1-day view window

Meta's reporting API has a default attribution window. Meta's own reference says that default means 7d_click and 1d_view.

In Meta's words: "7 days after clicking the ad" and "1 day after viewing the ad".

So the conversions Meta reports by default can include sales after a view, not only after a click.

One sale or lead, two claims

Meta and Google Ads each count the sales they touched, by their own rules. If that search was a click on your Google ad, Google Ads can count the same sale.

With consent, your own count has it once, credited to the Google click your site saw.

Add up what the platforms report, and together they can claim more sales than you made.

Views stay the platform's claim

In March 2026, Meta said it is "starting to partner with third party analytics providers, such as Northbeam and Triple Whale, to incorporate both clicks and views into their attribution model".

Sightwick is not one of them. It measures sales, leads and the ad clicks behind them, not views.

What it can show is Meta's own number. On the Attribution screen, Meta's 1-day view figure gets a line of its own under Overlap: View-through, claimed by Meta.

It never adds to your count. Its info note says why: "We never see a view, so this stays a claim."

That figure arrives as a total per campaign and day. Sightwick never knows which sale it was.

In the trial you link Google Ads yourself. Until Google completes its review of our app, you will see an "unverified app" warning.

Linking Meta follows Meta's review. Only on Meta? Book a call before you start.

Find the campaign the platform flatters

Once Meta or Google Ads is linked, the Attribution screen puts the platform's numbers beside yours. Per campaign, and for Meta down to the ad.

That takes UTM tags: the exact campaign name or ID in utm_campaign, and for Meta the ad's in utm_content. Without an exact match, that row shows no platform number. Sightwick does not guess.

With Google's auto-tagging alone, there is no UTM tag to match, so tag those ads too.

• Spend, straight from Meta and Google Ads.
• Platform conversions, platform ROAS and platform CPA: what the platform credits itself.
• Your conversions, value, ROAS and CPA: what your site counted, each sale once.
• ROAS gap: the platform's ROAS minus yours. A plus means the platform claims more than your count.

On a lead site, the same columns count leads, with CPA per lead.

Each sale Sightwick credits shows how it was tied to the ad:

• A click ID seen on your site.
• For Meta, a UTM tag plus a hashed email or phone on that sale.
• Only a UTM tag or a referrer.

Meta's column counts only the actions set to count. Until they are set, it shows a dash. Ask us which actions count.

The Claimed vs actual tile sets the totals side by side.

Performance Max looked fine on Google

Example figures for a web shop, not from a real account. Average order €70.

• Meta, prospecting. €1,200 spent. Meta claims 48 sales, your count is 30. ROAS 2.80x by Meta, 1.75x by your count.
• Meta, retargeting. €400 spent. Meta claims 30, your count is 22. ROAS 5.25x by Meta, 3.85x by yours.
• Google Ads, search. €900 spent. Google Ads claims 40, your count is 34. ROAS 3.11x by Google, 2.64x by yours.
• Google Ads, Performance Max. €700 spent. Google Ads claims 26, your count is 8. ROAS 2.60x by Google, 0.80x by yours.

Together the platforms claim 144 sales. Sightwick credited 94 sales to these four campaigns. Across the four, your ROAS is 2.06x.

Meta's view-through line, shown apart: 21 sales. That figure is not added to your count. Meta's own counts above can already include these 21.

By Google's number, Performance Max looks fine. By yours, it is the campaign to look at first: its ROAS gap of +1.80x is the widest of the four.

On a lead site, compare CPA per lead:

• Example lead site, Meta. €1,200 spent. Meta claims 60 leads, a CPA of €20. Your count is 40, a CPA of €30.

Where your own count stops

• Sightwick credits a sale to at most two visits, both in the same browser. They are that browser's first visit to your site and the visit with the sale. A visit in between gets no credit.
• Only sales with consent get credit. When a visitor declines cookies, the sale still counts on your dashboard, without credit to any ad.
• Your count starts when Sightwick goes on your site.
• A sale after a view gets credit only for the visits your site saw, such as that search.
• Linking Meta by signing in is not open to every business yet. That follows Meta's review.
• Other tools set platform numbers beside your own count too.
• We have not yet shown these columns on real campaigns with volume.

Checks before you move budget

1. Know what Meta's number holds. It can include sales up to 1 day after a view. It can differ from Ads Manager, which uses each ad set's setting. Your count never credits a view.
2. Never add the view-through line on top. Meta's own number can already include it.
3. For Meta, check which action counts. Conversion actions shows it under Platform counts.
4. Look at how each credited sale or lead was tied to the ad. A click ID seen on your site says more than a UTM tag alone.
5. Judge a campaign on several weeks of sales and leads.
6. Start with the widest ROAS gap. A campaign that pays by the platform's number and not by yours is your main suspect. Spend with nothing in your count? Check that campaign's UTM tag first.

Sightwick shows both numbers, and how each credited sale or lead was tied to the ad.