It is not which platform is better.
It is which job you need done. Meta and Google do fundamentally different work, and running them the same way is why most wellness budgets underperform.
Google captures demand. Meta creates demand.
Captures demand that already exists.
Someone searches for physiotherapy near me or IV drip therapy Bengaluru. The need is already there. The decision is already being made.
Creates demand that does not exist yet.
Nobody opens Instagram looking for a wellness clinic. You interrupt a scroll and give them a reason to care.
They fail for different reasons.
Use the platform that matches buyer intent.
Use Google when people search for your service by name.
If someone can type the treatment into a search bar, Google should carry the majority of your budget.
Use Meta when nobody knows to search for it.
If the customer does not know your service category exists, search will never find them.
The honest answer for most wellness brands: both, unequally.
Treat this as a month-one assumption, not a strategy. From month two, let cost per attended appointment decide the split.
60 / 40
60% Google and 40% Meta if you sell a named treatment people already search for.
30 / 70
30% Google and 70% Meta if you sell a programme, package or lifestyle offer nobody searches for.
50 / 50
A balanced split if you are a multi-service clinic with both demand capture and demand creation needs.
Traffic objective plus broad match is a budget leak.
Running Meta on a Traffic objective and Google on Broad match can create impressive-looking numbers while buying the least valuable audience available on each platform.
Use them as a pair, not a choice.
Meta builds awareness and familiarity. Google captures the branded search that awareness produces two weeks later. If branded search volume rises after a Meta campaign, Meta is working even when the last-click report gives Google all the credit.