In this article
Exclusive vs shared solar leads should be compared by cost per installed system, not price per name. Divide each source’s total spend by the customers who survive homeowner, roof, basic-eligibility, contract and cancellation checks. Exclusivity is worth paying for only when that final number, plus sales time, improves.
Disclosure: theBuildd publishes this article and sells exclusive solar leads.
How we compared exclusive and shared solar leads
This comparison uses one evidence freeze: 20 August 2026. We compared distribution, recipient count, qualification, replacement terms, published price, reported close rate and the last observable outcome. A price or product term needed a live provider page; a solar eligibility or cancellation claim needed a primary government or laboratory source.
Provider pages support only what that provider says about its own product. They do not establish a market average or prove that one model performs better. Where vendors use different definitions of a lead, close or installation, this article keeps those denominators separate rather than blending them into one benchmark.
The decision test is deliberately narrower. Apply the same screen to each source, retain the original cohort, include cancellations and divide source spend by the same final event. That method can be repeated inside a contractor’s CRM even when no provider publishes audited outcome data.
Exclusive vs shared solar leads: compare the screened funnel
Shared solar leads go to more than one buyer. Exclusive solar leads go to one buyer from that source. That difference removes one layer of competition, but it does not prove that the homeowner owns the property, has a workable roof, can support the project or will stay through installation.
The comparison therefore starts after the form fill, not at it. A raw name has almost no decision value until it moves through the same screening stages as every other source.
| Decision point | Shared solar lead | Exclusive solar lead |
|---|---|---|
| Buyers receiving the enquiry | More than one | One from that source |
| Sticker price | Usually the lower offer | Usually the higher offer |
| Immediate sales pressure | Compete for contact and attention | No same-source buyer race |
| Roof and eligibility risk | Still present | Still present |
| Cancellation risk after signing | Still present | Still present |
| Useful comparison metric | Cost per screened opportunity and installed customer | Cost per screened opportunity and installed customer |
Exclusive does not mean unopposed. A homeowner can fill out another form, ask neighbors for recommendations or contact installers directly. A source can promise its own distribution behavior; it cannot control the homeowner’s later shopping.
That distinction matters. Solar lead exclusivity is a distribution promise, not a promise that the homeowner has stopped shopping.
The published close-rate gap is useful, not bankable
Leads.net’s “How Many Solar Leads Do You Need to Close One Deal,” checked 20 August 2026, reports a 5% to 12% close range for aged or shared leads and 20% to 30% for exclusive, verified leads. Leads.net sells leads, and it combines aged with shared, so these are reported vendor figures rather than audited market data.
SolarReviews’ installer registration, also checked 20 August 2026, describes exclusive, duo, trio and quad products. It says its 2022 leads went to 2.2 companies on average and gives efficient buyers a 3% to 7% lead-to-close expectation across that product mix. That is a different denominator and cannot validate the Leads.net range.
| Published source | Lead category | Reported lead-to-close range | Limitation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Leads.net, 2026 solar lead guide | Aged or shared | 5% to 12% | Two different lead types combined |
| Leads.net, 2026 solar lead guide | Exclusive and verified | 20% to 30% | Vendor-published benchmark |
| SolarReviews installer registration | Mixed exclusive, duo, trio and quad | 3% to 7% | Product mix, not a clean shared-versus-exclusive split |
These are reported industry-wide figures, not theBuildd-specific data. They are directional estimates, not promises. Results depend on market, source, qualification, sales process, follow-up and the definition of “close.”
The disagreement is the useful part. A signed contract, a completed installation and a customer past the cancellation window are three different outcomes. Any provider can make its rate look better by stopping the count earlier.
Ask for the number, not the adjective. Then ask what sits in the denominator and what event counts as the win.
What published solar lead prices reveal
Published solar lead prices span different products, so the figures cannot be compared without age, recipient count and qualification. Pages checked 20 August 2026 showed a $200 theBuildd trial, $0.50 to $3 aged or shared records at Invention Solar, and $90 to $350 exclusive leads at RunsForYou.
| Provider or product | Distribution described by the provider | Published price | What the price does not establish |
|---|---|---|---|
| theBuildd | Exclusive, phone-qualified, one buyer | $200 for a 4-to-7-lead trial; $3,000 per month | Cost per screened opportunity or installation |
| Invention Solar aged web leads | Its published rate card says records are shared twice at each age bracket | $3 at 0–7 days; $2 at 8–15; $1.50 at 16–30; $1 at 31–90; $0.50 at 91+ days | Current intent, contact rate or install rate |
| RunsForYou exclusive solar leads | One installation company; the vendor says it pre-qualifies and can book appointments | $90–$350 per lead; $150–$600 per booked appointment | An audited result or market-wide range |
| SolarReviews lead registration | Exclusive, duo, trio or quad | Dynamic minimum bid by lead type and service area; no static dollar figure shown before those inputs | The final bid or the buyer’s close rate |
Sources are each provider’s published pricing, solar-lead or registration page, checked 20 August 2026. Invention Solar labels its still-live table “2025 Discounted Pricing,” so its figures are a dated rate card, not a claim about every 2026 purchase. Competitor sources are named in plain text because this article does not link to competitors.
The table is a product comparison, not a price ranking. A 91-day-old record at $0.50 is not the same unit as a phone-qualified exclusive lead or a booked appointment. Treating them as interchangeable would make the cheapest-looking row win before sales work, age and recipient count enter the analysis.
Run the division from paid lead to installed system
Cost per lead measures the vendor’s invoice. Cost per screened opportunity measures whether the source reached your actual sales floor. Cost per installed customer measures what survived the whole solar funnel.
Use three divisions for each source:
- Divide source spend by leads that pass your homeowner, roof and basic-eligibility screen.
- Divide source spend by signed contracts from that same cohort.
- Divide source spend by completed installations from that cohort.
Do not mix cohorts. A May lead that installs in August belongs to May’s source cohort, even if the revenue lands later. Otherwise a busy installation month can flatter whichever source you happen to be buying at the time.
Here is a source-bound worked example, not a forecast. RunsForYou’s solar-lead page, checked 20 August 2026, publishes a $90-to-$350 exclusive lead range and reports an 8% to 12% lead-to-install rate. Those are vendor claims about its own offer, not audited market data and not theBuildd results.
The named inputs and assumptions are explicit:
- Published input P: price per exclusive lead is $90 at the low boundary and $350 at the high boundary.
- Published input R: the vendor-reported lead-to-install share is 12% at the high boundary and 8% at the low boundary.
- Assumption N: each boundary case contains exactly 100 purchased leads, chosen only to make the arithmetic readable.
- Assumption S: source spend includes lead purchases only. It excludes setter payroll, commissions, software, site visits and financing fallout.
- Assumption D: “install” uses the vendor’s published label. No independent audit of that denominator was available.
The formula is cost per installed customer = (lead count × price per lead) ÷ (lead count × install share).
| Published boundary calculation | Lead spend | Installed customers | Cost per installed customer |
|---|---|---|---|
| $90 price and 12% reported install share | 100 × $90 = $9,000 | 100 × 0.12 = 12 | $9,000 ÷ 12 = $750 |
| $350 price and 8% reported install share | 100 × $350 = $35,000 | 100 × 0.08 = 8 | $35,000 ÷ 8 = $4,375 |
The result is a $750-to-$4,375 boundary under that vendor’s own published inputs. It is not a general exclusive-lead benchmark. The wide spread is the useful finding: price and install share must travel together, and payroll would raise both results once the omitted sales costs are added.
Run the identical formula on a shared cohort using its actual invoice and completed installations. If a shared batch cost $0.50 per record, that price is a source input. Its install share must still come from your cohort, not from an unrelated exclusive-lead vendor or a close-rate article with a different denominator.
Sales time belongs beside the division, even when payroll allocation is messy. Record dials, conversations, appointments and no-shows by source. A tie on acquisition cost is not a tie if one source consumes twice the setter capacity.
A solar lead earns its value after screening and installation, not when a name enters the CRM.
Why solar lead exclusivity breaks at the roof
Solar adds a physical eligibility gate that many home-service enquiries do not face so early. A homeowner can be interested, reachable and ready for a quote while the roof, shade profile, electricity use or project economics still prevent a workable installation.
The US Department of Energy tells homeowners to assess roof condition, structural suitability, shade, orientation and electricity use before a rooftop project proceeds. Its step-by-step solar guide also notes that installation may take only days while permits and inspections can take weeks to months.
That makes one word dangerous: qualified. A phone-verified homeowner is better than an unchecked form fill, but phone verification cannot complete a structural survey, site design or lender decision.
At theBuildd, the published qualification bar includes a real homeowner conversation before delivery. For solar, the call can establish intent and basic eligibility. It is not a credit check, financing qualification, site survey or engineering approval.
This is where a shared-lead report can hide waste. If one source sends many reachable homeowners but few properties pass the same screen, its contact rate may look healthy while its cost per workable opportunity does not.
Why solar leads don’t convert after the contract
A signed solar contract is not the end of acquisition risk. Design, permitting, inspection, interconnection, financing outcomes and homeowner decisions still sit between signature and an operating system, so lead-to-contract close rate can overstate the value that finally reaches the installation schedule.
A 2022 National Renewable Energy Laboratory report studied 199,665 residential PV-only projects from 2017 through 2019. The residential solar cancellation study found that cancellations and unsuccessful projects were more common than prior estimates suggested, with a meaningful number occurring even after permit or approval-to-build milestones.
The report does not compare shared and exclusive leads. It proves a narrower point that the buying model must respect: solar acquisition cost keeps changing after the contract is signed.
The study’s average result was stark: 51% of contracts in its dataset did not reach installation, while the median installer cancellation rate was 33%. The authors counted cancelled, indefinitely stalled and other unsuccessful post-contract projects, so 51% should not be relabeled as a universal cancellation rate.
The modeled cost impact on systems that did install averaged $0.20 per watt, or $1,400 per system, with a median of $0.10 per watt, or $700. The NREL technical report also found 73% of unsuccessful projects ended before permitting or interconnection application submission and 25% after permit or approval-to-build.
Those figures apply to the report’s medium-to-large installer dataset, not every US solar contractor. They do show why an installed-customer denominator matters economically: money spent on projects that never install has to be absorbed somewhere, and a contract-only dashboard leaves that cost outside the lead-source comparison.
Exclusivity can improve the top of the funnel while leaving downstream cancellation untouched. Roof surprises, project economics, financing outcomes, permitting and a homeowner’s changed mind do not disappear because only one contractor received the original enquiry.
That is really all there is to it. If your dashboard stops at “sold,” it cannot answer which source bought more installed customers.
Are exclusive solar leads worth it for your team?
Exclusive solar leads are worth it when they lower cost per screened opportunity or installed customer after the same qualification and follow-up process. They are a poor buy when exclusivity is vague, the screening bar is weak, your team cannot work the volume or the installed-customer cost remains higher.
The best proof is a controlled source test. Keep territory, offer, sales team and measurement window as similar as practical. Tag every lead at delivery and retain the original source through every later status change.
Judge the answers, not the pitch. Require written answers to these questions:
- How many contractors receive each lead?
- Can the record be resold, recycled or delivered later?
- Is exclusivity defined by ZIP code and trade?
- Which screening questions happen before delivery?
- What counts as a bad lead, and is it replaced or credited?
- What event does the provider call a conversion?
theBuildd sends each lead to one buyer, never resells or recycles it, and locks territory by ZIP code and trade. A five-person in-house team phone-qualifies homeowners before delivery, with consent checks, and delivery goes by text and email in under 10 minutes. Bad leads are replaced.
Get those terms written into the order you accept. theBuildd is not the fit for commercial solar, a buyer demanding a cash refund or anyone requiring a fixed volume floor. The published plans and trial give you the price side; your cohort report has to supply the outcome side.
Shared solar leads can still be the right buy
Shared does not automatically mean uneconomic. A disciplined inside-sales team with spare calling capacity may turn a low purchase price into an acceptable installed-customer cost. A smaller installer may also use a limited batch to test messaging before committing more budget.
The case gets stronger when the provider discloses recipient count, consent, age and replacement terms before purchase. It gets weaker when “shared” could mean two buyers or ten, or when recycled records sit inside the same bucket as fresh enquiries.
Low urgency changes the operating plan. Most homeowners can deliberate, compare and wait. An incentive deadline may create a real clock, but the everyday solar enquiry is not a burst pipe. Shared leads punish slow first contact, while both models still need patient follow-up across the longer decision.
Do not switch because a benchmark table says exclusive closes better. Switch when a clean test shows that your existing shared source loses too many people before screening, burns too much sales time or costs more per completed installation.
Make the next source prove itself
Export the last complete cohort from your shared provider. Add columns for contact, homeowner confirmed, roof suitable enough to progress, basic eligibility, appointment, signed contract, cancellation and installation. Put spend and sales time next to it.
Then run the same sheet for an exclusive source. Do not change the definition halfway through. Do not let an open lead become a win because the test period ended. Mark it open and revise the cohort when the outcome arrives.
The only number worth comparing is the one closest to collected revenue that both sources can produce honestly. For solar, that is usually cost per installed customer, supported by cost per screened opportunity while the newer cohort matures.
Put the two models on the same sheet. Compare the exclusivity promise, territory, qualification, replacement terms and price before you buy.
Compare your exclusive-lead options side by side →