When one considers these two companies, the following thought immediately springs to mind: “LinkedIn deals with professional profiles, Facebook serves as a social medium.” One would also imagine that Facebook is the more profitable company, given their widespread reputation and large user base. However, a closer examination of the statistics between the two social media behemoths yields some interesting results.

Indeed, Facebook has more users – an enormous 1 billion compared to a paltry 175 million. However, according to statistician Geoge Anders of Forbes, LinkedIn receives $1.30 in revenue for every hour a person uses their site. Facebook? A measly 6.2 cents. Granted, the average LinkedIn user spends 18 minutes on the site a month compared to the average Facebook user who devotes 6.4 hours to the site. Nevertheless, LinkedIn’s profit growth is expected to double this year to $70 million. How does LinkedIn, referenced by Forbes magazine as the “Anti-Facebook,” have such a sustainable and rapidly growing business model?

For starters, LinkedIn spends a whopping 33% of its revenue on sales and marketing. This is more than twice the amount that Facebook dedicates to their marketing campaign, 15%. The answer to LinkedIn’s successful model lies within these numbers. Recruiter, LinkedIn’s main product for talent scouts, turns a person’s résumé into a money-making scheme. Big-name companies lease Recruiter seats for as much as $8,200 a year – Adobe rents 70 seats, bringing in nearly $500,000 a year to LinkedIn alone. This mutually beneficial process allows LinkedIn to maintain a steady profit from year-to-year without having to worry about many potential setbacks.

Facebook’s revenue model is entirely different from that of LinkedIn’s. Roughly 84% of their revenue comes from advertisements, but users only click once every 2,000 ads. This obviously only applies when you’re on Facebook, for that’s the only time that ads can make an impression. LinkedIn’s Recruiter process works even when you’re offline, a distinct difference that translates to a difference millions of dollars in yearly revenue.

Both LinkedIn and Facebook operate as “information-rich” systems, but LinkedIn touts itself as the #1 professional network in the world, as opposed to Facebook’s social network. The latter doesn’t necessarily serve a greater purpose than connecting people on a basic level. However, LinkedIn produces jobs, fulfilling the need that is professional recruitment. In a corporate setting, there is a greater purpose for information that attracts both large and small businesses. Simply put, a company can benefit greatly from searching for a job candidate who fulfills a set number of requirements. Ad companies can personalize their target audience, but even after customization their impression is very low, with sales at an even lower rate.

Clearly, the target markets and business plans for both companies differ greatly – LinkedIn focuses on the middle-aged white-collar workers and college graduates. Facebook tends to appeal more towards the pre-teen and teenage populations. Both are excellent businesses leading their respective fields, but it will be interesting to see the comparison of their performances in the coming years.