One thing I like tracking on tROAS campaigns that most people do not is hit rate, the number of days the algorithm actually delivered what I asked for. I read it alongside the overall average.
One subscription app, 56 days on Meta tROAS against a 55% target.
Two numbers come out of that:
| Metric | How I calculate it | This account, 56 days | What it misses |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blended ROAS against target | Overall ROAS for the period, divided by the tROAS target | 59.4% ÷ 55% = 108% of target | It hides how many days actually reached the target |
| Hit rate | Days above target, divided by days in the period | 36 ÷ 56 = 64% of days | It counts days, so a low spend day weighs the same as a high spend day |
I use the blended figure for where the whole period landed against the target, and hit rate for how often a single day got there.
The algorithm works. That is the problem.
Here it consistently overshot what I asked for. So if it is delivering 108% of your target, why are you not raising the target? Most accounts never get around to asking.
The two levers do different things.
- Budget scaling says find me more people like this
- Target raising says find me better people
Most teams reach for the first one automatically because it feels like growth. But an account that clears its target on two days out of three is telling you the target is set below what the account can do, and more budget at the same target just buys more of the same cohort. A higher target usually buys less delivery, so raise it in steps and watch whether spend and payer volume hold.
Hit rate is what surfaces that. A single blended ROAS figure at the end of the month averages the signal away, the same way one blended tROAS number hid a country running far below target for three months in an account I audited. Read hit rate next to the blended figure, not instead of it. On the days that miss, also check how far below target they landed and how much of the spend sat on them.