Official statement
Other statements from this video 11 ▾
- 10:07 Le mobile-first est-il encore une priorité SEO ou un acquis définitivement intégré ?
- 11:33 L'App Indexing exige-t-il vraiment un alignement parfait entre app et site web ?
- 13:54 Faut-il vraiment débloquer CSS et JavaScript pour que Google indexe correctement vos pages ?
- 14:06 Le responsive design est-il vraiment la seule option viable pour le SEO mobile ?
- 24:09 Les redirections mobiles peuvent-elles vous coûter une pénalité manuelle ?
- 26:04 Comment tracker efficacement les performances de vos pages AMP sans perdre en granularité analytique ?
- 30:08 AMP accélère-t-il vraiment le chargement des pages et faut-il encore l'adopter ?
- 36:37 Pourquoi Googlebot n'indexe-t-il pas vos contenus chargés en lazy loading ou en scroll infini ?
- 37:00 L'App Indexing peut-il vraiment booster votre visibilité organique ?
- 48:52 L'architecture AMP est-elle vraiment aussi flexible qu'un site mobile séparé ?
- 72:47 Comment vérifier la conformité AMP de votre CMS sans passer par Search Console ?
Google states that AMP complements classic versions without replacing them, featuring automatic indexing. In reality, AMP does not provide any direct ranking advantage, but it optimizes display in certain mobile carousels. The real question remains: is it still worth investing in this technology in light of Core Web Vitals?
What you need to understand
Does AMP act as a replacement version for your pages?
No. AMP never replaces your canonical version. This is a point that many clients still confuse. The AMP page coexists with your standard page: Google can serve either one depending on the browsing context.
Technically, you are publishing two distinct versions. The classic page remains the reference URL, the one that collects ranking signals. AMP only serves as a fast rendering alternative, primarily on mobile. If you remove your AMP version tomorrow, your standard page continues to exist normally in the index.
Does Google automatically index all AMP pages?
Yes, if they are properly linked. Automatic indexing works via the rel="amphtml" tag placed in the <head> of your standard page. Google discovers the AMP version this way and adds it to its index separately.
But automatic does not mean instant or prioritized. The crawl budget still applies. On a site with thousands of pages and little authority, AMP versions may take weeks to be crawled. Automatic indexing does not bypass the classic crawling budget issues.
Does this technology provide a measurable SEO advantage?
Google's statement carefully dodges this question. AMP is not a direct ranking factor, Google has confirmed this several times. What AMP offers is eligibility for certain SERP features like the Top Stories carousel on mobile (although this criterion has been relaxed).
In practice, the real advantage of AMP lies in the perceived loading speed thanks to Google’s cache. An AMP page displays almost instantly from the results, reducing the pre-click bounce rate. But since the arrival of Core Web Vitals, a well-optimized standard page often performs just as well.
- AMP complements your standard version, never replaces it
- Automatic indexing requires the rel="amphtml" tag to be properly implemented
- No direct ranking boost, only specific SERP display benefits
- The crawl budget remains a constraint even for AMP pages
- The perceived speed via Google cache constitutes the main user benefit
SEO Expert opinion
Does this statement truly reflect what we observe on the ground?
Partially. Google is correct in principle: AMP does not override your canonical URLs. However, the wording "complements" is generous. In reality, AMP has lost much of its relevance since 2021 when Google opened Top Stories to non-AMP pages meeting Core Web Vitals.
Clients who invested heavily in AMP between 2016 and 2020 now find themselves with two versions to maintain for a declining ROI. Many news sites are gradually abandoning AMP, finding that a well-optimized classic architecture performs just as well without the complexities of double management. [To verify]: Google communicates little about the current adoption rates of AMP, but indirect signals suggest a decline.
What concrete limitations is Google keeping quiet about?
Several critical points are missing. First, AMP imposes severe technical restrictions: limited JavaScript, constrained inline CSS, and complex forms that are difficult to implement. For an e-commerce or SaaS site, these constraints can break the user experience.
Next, analytics tracking becomes more complex. AMP pages served from Google cache create cross-domain tracking issues. Your traditional analytics tools often see fragmented sessions. You need to specifically configure amp-analytics, adding an extra layer of maintenance.
In what cases does AMP remain relevant in an SEO strategy?
Let’s be honest: the use cases are shrinking. AMP still holds value for news media with very high mobile traffic where every millisecond of latency matters. Google’s cache then offers a global distribution advantage that is difficult to replicate otherwise.
For everything else — e-commerce, lead generation, B2B services — investing in Core Web Vitals on your standard version provides a better ROI. You optimize a single version without the functional compromises of AMP. Tools like Cloudflare or traditional CDNs now offer performance comparable to AMP cache.
Practical impact and recommendations
Should you still implement AMP on a new site?
No, except in very specific cases. If you are launching a site in 2025, focus your resources on optimizing the Core Web Vitals of your standard pages. The effort-to-benefit ratio of AMP is no longer justified for the majority of projects.
Instead, invest in high-performance hosting, a global CDN, modern image compression (WebP, AVIF), and optimized JavaScript. You will achieve comparable loading times without the technical limitations of AMP. The exception: you are an international news outlet with over 10 million mobile page views monthly. In that case, AMP may still offer a marginal gain.
How can you audit the real impact of AMP on an existing site?
Start by comparing performance and engagement metrics between your AMP and standard pages. Search Console provides separate data for each version. Look at CTR, bounce rate, time spent. If the differences are minimal, AMP offers no value.
Then analyze the traffic distribution by source. If your AMP pages receive less than 5% of total traffic, that’s a clear signal that Google primarily serves your standard versions. Also check the average positions: if they are identical between AMP and non-AMP, you are maintaining two versions for no reason.
What mistakes should you avoid if you keep AMP?
The classic mistake: neglecting the maintenance of AMP pages. Many sites deploy AMP and then forget about it. The result: outdated AMP versions with expired content or broken links continue to circulate through Google cache.
Another pitfall: implementing incorrect canonical tags. The AMP page must point to the standard version with rel="canonical", and the standard version must point to AMP with rel="amphtml". If this loop is broken, Google may index both as distinct entities and create cannibalization.
- Compare CTR and engagement between AMP and standard versions in Search Console
- Ensure the rel="amphtml" and rel="canonical" tags form a coherent loop
- Test your AMP pages with the official Google AMP Test tool to catch validation errors
- Regularly audit the AMP cache to identify outdated versions
- Measure maintenance costs (dev time, complexity) versus actual traffic benefits
- If you abandon AMP, set up 301 redirects for AMP URLs that have backlinks
❓ Frequently Asked Questions
AMP améliore-t-il le classement de mes pages dans Google ?
Puis-je avoir uniquement des pages AMP sans version standard ?
Comment Google choisit-il entre ma version AMP et standard dans les résultats ?
Que se passe-t-il si je supprime mes pages AMP après les avoir déployées ?
AMP est-il encore recommandé pour un site d'actualité en 2025 ?
🎥 From the same video 11
Other SEO insights extracted from this same Google Search Central video · duration 54 min · published on 10/12/2015
🎥 Watch the full video on YouTube →
💬 Comments (0)
Be the first to comment.