NAVINES SEO LAB

Why AI Overview CTR studies report losses from 15% to 58%

A method-by-method comparison of Amsive, Pew and Ahrefs findings, with the denominators and limitations needed for responsible planning.

Direct answer

The published figures answer different questions. Amsive compared keyword-level CTR patterns across selected sites, Pew observed browsing behavior among a US panel, and Ahrefs modeled position-one CTR drift between 2023 and 2025 for 300,000 informational keywords.

A larger percentage is not automatically better evidence. Sample construction, rank position, AI Overview exposure, desktop or panel measurement and the chosen counterfactual change the result; use the range as scenarios around your own Search Console baseline.

Practical steps

  1. Define the decision, baseline period, population and metric before looking at the result.
  2. Record the primary source, collection date, denominator and exact meaning of every field.
  3. Segment pages, queries or locations before comparing scenarios; preserve raw totals and missing data.
  4. Act on a testable gap, monitor business outcomes and revisit the conclusion when platforms or coverage change.

Example

A site with 100,000 impressions and 5,000 clicks should not subtract 58% from all clicks. First estimate which impressions are exposed, then model 15.49%, 37% and 58% relative losses for that subset and compare them with observed changes.

Common mistakes

  • Turning one study average into a guaranteed forecast for every website.
  • Calling an association causal or publishing secret algorithm weights and review thresholds as facts.
  • Optimizing a proxy while ignoring qualified visits, leads, revenue, accessibility and user trust.

Limitations

  • Search features, reporting access and local results change by query, place, device, time and user context.
  • Exports and observational studies can reveal patterns, not the hidden ranking system or the counterfactual result for one site.

Primary sources

Continue learning

WhatsApp