There isn't really a single, 'correct' way to describe the relationship between two proportions. The issue here is how to give a measure of the size of an effect when the constituent measures are proportions of known totals. The effect size for comparisons of continuous variables with natural zeros is straightforward, but with binary data, there are inescapable complexities. Unfortunately, there is no perfect solution to that problem whereby you get all the advantages of every option and none of the disadvantages. Moreover, which measure of effect size should be used for such a situation has long been a source of contention. For what it's worth, the three major contenders are:
The risk difference (your option 1), which is $.05$ in your case. People like it because subtraction is simple and the measure seems very intuitive. A problem is that, in general, $.05$ probably does not equal $.05$ (e.g., it is likely much harder to improve your click-through rate from $.10$ to $.15$ than it is to improve it to $.10$ from $.05$, as the pool of potential customers is shrinking within the group that sees your ad).
The risk ratio (more or less your option 2), which is $2$ in your case. People similarly like this as relatively intuitive. Note however that successive increments with the same numerical value are again unlikely to be truly equal (similar to the above; here: $.1/.05 \ne .2/.1$), and that the measure is unintuitively asymmetrical (i.e., comparing $p1$ to $p2$ yields $2$, but comparing $p2$ to $p1$ gives $.5$).
The odds ratio (which you did not list), which would be $\approx 2.11$ in your case. With the odds ratio, it is at least theoretically possible to have a constant increment forever, and the odds ratio also plays an important role in logistic regression. On the other hand, the odds ratio isn't even remotely intuitive, and suffers from a technical problem called 'non-collapsibility'.
In your case, you have just two numbers. It is probably easiest to just present them. If you have to say it's either 'five percentage points higher' or 'twice as high', I would focus on which is likely to be more readily and correctly understood by your audience. I might further consider a case where you were able to be twice as effective, would the result then be closer to $.15$ or $.20$?