You look at your paid search numbers and wonder… are we paying for clicks we already own? Is our paid search cannibalizing organic search?
We wanted a clear answer, so we pulled data from Ahrefs and looked at seven SaaS brands: HubSpot, Twilio, Figma, Databricks, Stripe, Box and Zoom.
Across them, over $92,500 a month is going into branded keywords where they already rank in the top three organically.
That is paid spend sitting on top of traffic they already own. Over a year, that crosses $1.1 million.
We mapped paid keywords against organic rankings to see exactly where this overlap shows up and how much it is costing.
We mapped every paid keyword against its organic ranking for each of the seven SaaS brands to see how much paid spend is sitting on top of organic visibility
Note: All the data in this report comes from Ahrefs SEO tool, March 2026.
A huge share is going into branded keywords where these companies already rank in the top three. That is more than $1.1 million a year!
In some cases, it is even more concentrated. At HubSpot, the keyword “hubspot crm” alone is driving about $55,000 in monthly paid spend, even though they already rank #1 organically.
To make sense of this, we made a framework by grouping every keyword based on where it ranks organically, from position 1 to no ranking at all:
And, based on that…
Once we bucket the keywords, we can see how some brands are using paid to fill gaps. Others are mostly sitting on top of their own organic rankings.
Both HubSpot and Twilio are heavily skewed toward branded overlap.
Databricks and Box are the only ones in this set that keeps overlap low.
With this data itself we can see that brand overlap is not evenly distributed. A few companies drive most of the waste and the difference comes down to allocation.
The biggest waste shows up at the keyword level. A few keywords are driving a large share of the total overlap spend.
“hubspot crm” alone costs HubSpot about $55K per month.
They already hold the top organic position for this term. The search intent is strong and direct. In most cases, this click would happen without any paid support.
These keywords look smaller on their own, but they follow the same pattern. Most of them are pricing or navigation queries. The brand already ranks at the top, and the user intent is clear.
Well, yes, individually, these do not seem significant, but they repeat across multiple variations. Over time, they add up to a meaningful share of the budget.
Let’s look at the paid-organic overlap, one brand at a time:
HubSpot runs the largest paid program in this set. But once we broke down the spend, there was a clear pattern that was hard to miss.
Where most of the money is going:
These are all queries where the user already knows what they are looking for. Even without paid, HubSpot is showing up first. A large share of the budget is protecting something that is already secure.
At the same time, this is not a weak paid program. Far from it.
HubSpot’s non-brand side is actually well built.
Paid here captures the demand that organic does not fully cover. From where we see it, the opportunity is to shift more weight toward what is already working.
Twilio is even more concentrated. 85% of its paid spend, around $8.9K/month, goes into branded overlap.
The top single term is 'twillo' (a common misspelling), costing $4,557/month on a term where Twilio ranks #1 organically.
At this point, it looks like the account is heavily defensive. It is protecting brand traffic more than it is creating new demand.
But there is another side to this. Twilio’s pure-paid keywords point to clear growth areas.
These are real entry points for new users. Even a small shift in budget here could open up a very different acquisition path.
Databricks is where things start to look more balanced. The budget is not being pulled into brand-heavy overlap. Instead, it is spread across areas where paid can actually add value.
How their spend is distributed:
Here, paid is not competing with organic. It improves visibility where it matters, without overspending on terms that are already secured.
Stripe is one of the most active advertisers in this group.
It has wide keyword coverage and a strong non-brand presence. But a noticeable share of spend still goes into overlap.
Around 38% of the budget, roughly $7K/month, is tied to brand terms.
At the same time, Stripe’s non-brand program is extensive.
It targets a wide range of payment-related queries and regional variations. That is where most of the acquisition potential sits.
From what we can see, there is a solid acquisition engine here, but it is just partially weighed down by overlap that could be trimmed.
Zoom’s approach feels more focused. Instead of spreading spend evenly, it leans into areas where organic is still developing.
65% of its budget goes into pure-paid keywords.
Most of this is tied to:
These are newer areas for the brand, so paid is helping build visibility faster.
There is still some overlap, mostly around pricing terms like “zoom pricing,” which already ranks #1.
But in this case, it makes sense. These are high-intent queries where even small gains could turn the tables.
Figma and Box sit in a very different place. Their paid spend is low enough that overlap does not have a major impact.
Figma shows a higher overlap percentage, but the actual spend behind it is small.
Box leans more toward pure-paid. But that is largely because of how limited the program is. In both cases, organic is doing most of the work.
See, every keyword with organic rankings is not a waste of budget. In fact, across these accounts, there are a few patterns where paid is doing exactly what it should.
Here’s how we’d look at it:
Paid works when it is adding something new. That could be securing high-intent moments, improving visibility where rankings are not strong enough, or entering searches where organic does not exist.
Once it starts covering what is already owned, the value drops off quickly.
Next we need to look at how these seven programs stack up based on where the budget actually goes.
We’ve ranked each brand based on how much of their paid spend is going into areas that genuinely need it. The higher the score, the more of the budget is working toward incremental visibility.
Note: Efficiency Score = % of spend going into grey-zone (rank 4-10), deep gaps (rank 11+), and pure-paid non-brand keywords.
From where we see it, this ranking is less about performance and more about intent. It shows which programs are set up to drive new demand, and which ones are still focused on defending what they already have.
What we’re seeing here is common across SaaS. Paid accounts are often built when organic rankings are still developing. As SEO improves, those same keywords stay active in paid, and over time, overlap builds up without anyone revisiting it.
Start by mapping your paid keywords against organic rankings using tools like Ahrefs, SEMrush, or Google Search Console. Filter for top 5 rankings. This quickly shows where you’re paying for traffic you already own.
Split the list early. Brand keywords ranking #1-3 are usually the easiest place to cut back. Non-brand overlap needs a closer look since some of it still drives value.
Don’t pause based on rankings alone. You need to look at conversions. If organic will likely capture the same traffic, it’s safe to reduce. If not, keep it.
Move that budget to keywords where you don’t rank. Competitors, category terms, and new use cases are where paid actually adds reach.
This is also not something you fix once and move on. Rankings change, and as they do, the role of paid should change with them. Review your top paid keywords against organic every quarter to keep overlap in check.
If a keyword performs well in paid and you have no organic presence for it, that is a clear signal. Instead of guessing what to prioritize in SEO, you already have evidence of demand and conversion.
Across the accounts we looked at, a meaningful portion of spend is still tied up in brand overlap that could be reduced. The opportunity is not just cost savings. It is what that budget can do when it is redirected to areas where paid is actually needed.
Before you take this and apply it, here’s exactly how we approached it.
We pulled all paid keyword data from Ahrefs (March 2026) and mapped each keyword against its organic ranking. That gave us a clear view of where paid and organic overlap, where they support each other, and where spend is just repeating what’s already working.
The numbers you see, CPC, traffic, and cost, are estimates. They’re useful for direction, not precision. What matters more is how consistently the same patterns show up across different brands.
A few things we focused on while analyzing:
If you’re doing this yourself, we’d suggest not to overcomplicate it. Look at your keywords one by one and ask a simple question: is paid adding value here, or just sitting on top of organic?
