Should you give up on AMP if you’re using GA4 to measure your performance?

Why does the lack of GA4 support create a real on-the-ground issue?

Universal Analytics stopped collecting data in July 2023. All sites had to migrate to GA4, except… those using AMP. They find themselves in an analytical deadlock: either maintain two versions of Analytics (one for standard pages in GA4, one for AMP in UA which no longer collects anything), or completely abandon tracking on their accelerated pages.

The issue isn’t theoretical. Publishers who have heavily invested in AMP — particularly for visibility in Top Stories carousels on mobile — find themselves blind to the actual performance of these pages. It’s impossible to measure conversion rates, user behavior, or advertising revenue attribution with standard market tools.

Was this situation predictable or is it a complete abandonment?

Google began distancing AMP from ranking back in 2021, by opening Top Stories to all fast pages conforming to Core Web Vitals. The signal was clear: AMP was losing its SEO privilege status. What is surprising is the lack of communication regarding the analytical transition.

A product team acknowledging the demand without announcing a date is often a sign of a priority plummeting on the roadmap. For a framework that required massive refactoring on the publisher’s side, the lack of support for such a central tool as GA4 feels more like a silent burial than just a development delay.

What alternatives exist today for tracking AMP pages?

Some publishers use third-party solutions like Adobe Analytics or Matomo, which offer functional AMP integrations. Others resort to custom tracking pixels or manually configured GTM, but with significant limitations on advanced events.

The reality is that no solution matches the native GA4 integration in terms of data depth and ease of deployment. Workarounds exist but fragment data and complicate analytical governance — exactly what GA4 was supposed to solve by unifying web and app properties.

• No native GA4 support for AMP despite the obsolescence of Universal Analytics
• No date announced for future integration, indicating a low priority
• Third-party alternatives available (Adobe, Matomo, custom pixels) but with data fragmentation
• Critical impact for publishers reliant on AMP for Top Stories who need to measure real engagement
• Strategic decision to make: maintain AMP without reliable analytics or migrate to standard fast pages with full GA4 support

Does this statement reflect a strategic disengagement from Google towards AMP?

Let’s be honest: when a product team at Google says "we are aware of the demand" without a public roadmap, it's rarely a good sign. AMP peaked between 2016 and 2020, driven by a tangible SEO advantage in mobile SERPs. Since that advantage disappeared with the opening of Top Stories to non-AMP pages, adoption has stagnated and then declined.

The absence of GA4 support — while migration had been planned for years — suggests that engineering resources are no longer allocated to AMP. The framework isn’t officially abandoned, but it is clearly in minimal maintenance mode. For a publisher starting today, betting on AMP would be a strategic mistake.

Do ground observations confirm this decline in usage?

Since 2021, there has been a gradual exodus of major sites that aggressively adopted AMP. The Guardian, Reddit, and several large US publishers have either removed or drastically reduced their AMP implementation. The reason given? Maintenance complexity for a marginal ROI.

A/B tests conducted by these publishers show that standard optimized pages perform just as well as AMP in SERPs, provided they meet Core Web Vitals. They also offer a richer user experience, without the technical constraints of the AMP framework (no custom JavaScript, CSS limitations, dependence on Google cache). [To be verified]: some even report better engagement metrics on non-AMP versions, but public data is lacking.

Should we consider this situation temporary or structural?

Google’s history shows that projects in silent maintenance mode never return to the forefront. When a tech loses its internal sponsor and business justification, it can survive for years in zombie mode (look at Google+, Hangouts, or the dozens of shut-down products).

For AMP, the issue is structural: with improvements in mobile browsers and the universalization of 4G/5G connections, the need for an ultra-light page framework has diminished. Core Web Vitals have replaced AMP as the performance standard, and they are more flexible and technically less constraining. Waiting for GA4 support that may never come is betting on an improbable resurrection.

What concrete steps should you take if you're using AMP in production today?

First step: audit the actual dependency of your traffic and revenue on AMP pages. Extract Search Console data to identify the volume of clicks coming from AMP results (especially Top Stories). If this volume represents less than 15% of your organic traffic, migrating to optimized standard pages should be your priority.

Next, test a gradual migration: start with a section of the site or a type of content. Create optimized non-AMP versions for Core Web Vitals, compare SERP performances over 4-6 weeks. In most cases, you will find that traffic loss is negligible, if not zero, if the technical optimization is well executed.

How to deal with the lack of GA4 if you need to maintain AMP in the short term?

If you can't abandon AMP immediately — editorial contract, CMS constraints, critical traffic volume — implement hybrid tracking. Use solutions like Matomo (which natively supports AMP) or configure custom tracking pixels to at least capture: page views, traffic source, and macro conversions.

Be cautious: these solutions will never replace GA4’s depth, but they fill the gap for critical business KPIs. Clearly document the methodology to avoid risky comparisons between AMP data (partial tracking) and non-AMP data (full GA4). The fragmentation of analytical sources is a real risk for data governance.

What mistakes should be avoided during the transition?

Do not abruptly delete all your AMP pages without a redirection plan. Indexed AMP URLs must be 301 redirected to their non-AMP equivalents to preserve link juice and avoid massive 404 errors. Google will take several weeks to re-crawl and re-evaluate your pages.

Another classic pitfall: underestimating the impact on Core Web Vitals. An AMP page is very fast by default due to the framework’s constraints. When migrating to standard HTML, you need to compensate with aggressive optimization: lazy loading images, critical inline CSS, elimination of blocking JavaScript, CDN for static assets. Without this, you risk losing rankings even if the content is the same.

• Audit the share of traffic actually dependent on AMP in Search Console
• Set up alternative tracking (Matomo, Adobe, custom pixels) for temporarily maintained AMP pages
• Test a gradual migration on a section of the site with tight monitoring of SERP performances
• Optimize non-AMP pages for Core Web Vitals before disabling AMP (LCP < 2.5s, CLS < 0.1)
• Implement clean 301 redirects from all AMP URLs to their standard equivalents
• Document the hybrid tracking methodology to avoid misinterpretation of data