View-through attribution credits a conversion to an ad the person saw but didn’t click, as long as the conversion happens inside the view window. On Meta that window is one day: the Ads Insights API stopped returning the 7-day and 28-day view windows on January 12, 2026, and 1-day view is the view window that remains (Meta for Developers).
In Meta’s own API naming, 1d_view means one day of views and zero days of clicks, while 7d_click means zero days of views and seven of clicks (evaluation spec reference). A view-through conversion is one that only the first kind of window would count.
How Meta splits credit today
| Attribution type | What has to happen before the conversion | Windows in the API | Recent change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Click-through | a click on the ad; for website conversions, a link click | 1, 7 or 28 days | non-link clicks moved out in March 2026 |
| Engage-through (formerly engaged-view) | an engaged video view of 5 seconds, or a share, save or other non-link click | 1-day engaged view | renamed in March 2026; the video threshold was 10 seconds |
| View-through | an impression, no click | 1 day | 7-day and 28-day view dropped on January 12, 2026 |
The March 2026 changes come from Meta’s announcement on click attribution, which applies to campaigns optimizing for website or in-store conversions. Billing didn’t change; the reporting did.
Why view-through attribution inflates lead gen numbers
A landing page lead needs a form submission on your site. A view-through lead is someone who saw the ad, didn’t click it, and within a day reached your site another way: a search for your brand, a typed URL, an email, a click on a different ad. Meta credits the ad they saw. Your tracking has no click to attach the lead to, so it credits the route they actually took, or records the lead as unattributed.
People who convert within a day of merely seeing an ad are often people who were close to converting anyway: retargeting audiences, past visitors, anyone who already knows the brand. View-through credit can’t separate them from the people the ad actually persuaded. That’s a question for incrementality, not for attribution.
Example: the same leads, read per window
| Window (example, €1,000 spend) | Leads Meta reports | CPL |
|---|---|---|
| 7-day click or 1-day view | 90 | €11.11 |
| 7-day click | 74 | €13.51 |
| 1-day click | 63 | €15.87 |
| Leads from clicks your tracking logged | 66 | €15.15 |
The 16 leads between the first two rows are credited to views. In this example they make the CPL look about 18% cheaper than the click-only figure, and they’re the reason the cost per result in Ads Manager can beat every number you can reproduce.
View-through credit never reaches the CPL DropCPL shows you. It’s computed from spend per ad and the leads your landing pages actually received, per creative and per landing page. Start free →
How to compare click-only
- Pull results per window. The Ads Insights API returns click and view windows as separate values through
action_attribution_windows, so ask for7d_clickand1d_viewside by side instead of one blended figure. - Line the click figure up with your own count. Same dates, same ads, leads your server received. The attribution window has to match on both sides or the gap is an artefact.
- Treat the view part as Meta’s claim. It may be real influence. Nothing in your data can confirm it, so it shouldn’t decide which creative gets the budget.
Choosing the setting itself is a separate decision, covered in Meta attribution settings. The longer argument for deciding on the first-party number is in real CPL vs platform CPL.
Related terms
- Attribution window: how long a click or view keeps its claim
- Cost per result: the Ads Manager metric view-through credit feeds into
- Real CPL: the number built without it
- Incrementality: whether the ad caused the conversion at all