Official statement
Other statements from this video 39 ▾
- □ Can Removing Links Trigger a Google Penalty?
- □ Should you really clean up your artificial links if Google already ignores them?
- □ Are links really losing their ranking power on Google?
- □ Do backlinks lose their significance once a website is established?
- □ Should we really ban all exchanges of value for links?
- □ Are editorial collaborations with backlinks really risk-free according to Google?
- □ Should you really stop all large-scale repetitive link tactics?
- □ Are Google’s manual actions always visible in Search Console?
- □ Does an inactive spam domain automatically regain its reputation after a decade?
- □ Should AMP pages really adhere to the same Core Web Vitals thresholds as standard HTML pages?
- □ Should you really update the publication date after every small change on a page?
- □ Do News sitemaps really accelerate the indexing of your news articles?
- □ Can self-referential canonical tags really safeguard your site from URL duplications?
- □ Should you really let go of rel=next and rel=prev tags for pagination?
- □ Is it true that the number of words isn't a Google ranking factor?
- □ Can database-generated sites still rank by automatically cross-referencing data?
- □ Are long-term 302 redirects really equivalent to 301s for SEO?
- □ How long can a 503 error last without risking deindexation?
- □ Why does it really take 3 to 4 months for a revamp to be recognized by Google?
- □ Are separate mobile URLs (m.example.com) still a viable SEO option?
- □ Should you be worried about massively removing backlinks after a manual penalty?
- □ Are Backlinks Becoming a Secondary Ranking Factor?
- □ Should you really wait for links to come in 'naturally' or take the initiative?
- □ What exactly constitutes a natural link according to Google, and how can you avoid risky practices?
- □ Should you nofollow all editorial links that come from collaborations with experts?
- □ Are you truly confident that you don't have any Google manual penalties?
- □ Does a spammy past really erase its SEO footprint after a decade?
- □ Should you really update a page's publication date to improve its ranking?
- □ Do News sitemaps really speed up the indexing of your content?
- □ Why does your site fluctuate between page 1 and page 5 of Google's results?
- □ Does fact-check markup really enhance your page rankings?
- □ Is it true that you can ditch AMP to appear in Google Discover?
- □ Should you really add a self-referencing canonical tag on every page?
- □ Should we still use rel=next and rel=previous tags for pagination?
- □ Is it true that the number of words doesn’t really matter for Google rankings?
- □ Can database-generated sites really rank on Google?
- □ Should you really abandon separate mobile URLs (m.example.com)?
- □ Should you really worry about the difference between 301 and 302 redirects?
- □ How long can you keep a 503 code without risking deindexation?
Google now ranks AMP pages as regular HTML pages, without preferential treatment. When Core Web Vitals become a ranking factor, they apply to both AMP and standard pages alike. The historical advantage of AMP is fading: a well-optimized HTML page can compete with or even surpass a poorly designed AMP page.
What you need to understand
Has AMP lost its privileged status in Google's algorithm?
The statement from John Mueller marks a strategic turning point. Historically, AMP received an implicit boost: mobile carousel, lightning badge, preloading in the Google cache. Today, Google claims to treat AMP and HTML on equal footing for organic ranking.
Specifically? An AMP page gains no algorithmic bonus simply by being AMP. If your regular HTML page shows better Core Web Vitals than a competing AMP, it can outrank it. The framework is no longer a shortcut to top positions.
Do Core Web Vitals apply differently to AMP pages?
No. Google evaluates performance metrics (LCP, FID, CLS) in the same way, whether it’s AMP or HTML. A poorly implemented AMP page — heavy third-party scripts, unoptimized images, layout shifts — can fail to meet CWV thresholds just as easily as a standard page.
The advantage of AMP lies in its architectural constraints: limited JavaScript, restricted inline CSS, native lazy loading. These constraints facilitate meeting thresholds but do not guarantee it. A careless developer can produce a slow AMP; an expert can design an HTML page as fast as an AMP.
Is it still worth investing in AMP after this clarification?
The question presents itself differently. AMP remains relevant if your tech stack does not allow for easy optimization of performance: outdated CMS, limited dev team, uncompressible third-party dependencies. In this case, AMP offers a pre-optimized framework that enforces performance.
But if you master modern optimizations (code-splitting, edge CDN, preload/prefetch, Brotli compression), a well-optimized standard HTML page can match or even surpass AMP — all while offering more functional and creative flexibility. The trade-off becomes cost/benefit, not automation.
- AMP no longer provides a default ranking bonus in Google's algorithm
- Core Web Vitals equally apply to AMP and standard HTML pages
- AMP pages generally meet CWV thresholds due to their technical constraints, but this is not guaranteed
- Investment in AMP is particularly justified when dev resources or the tech stack limit traditional HTML optimizations
- A well-optimized HTML page can compete in performance with AMP while retaining flexibility and functional richness
SEO Expert opinion
Does this statement truly reflect on-the-ground reality?
Let’s be honest: Mueller's statement simplifies a more nuanced reality. On paper, AMP and HTML are treated equally. In practice, AMP pages still enjoy indirect advantages: preloading in the Google AMP cache, almost instant display from mobile SERPs, better server-side rendering management.
These benefits are not direct ranking factors, but they improve the click-through rate and reduce bounce rate — two behavioral signals that indirectly influence positioning. Saying that AMP has no advantages is technically correct for the algorithm, but incomplete from a UX perspective.
Do Core Web Vitals really make AMP obsolete?
Not exactly. [To be verified]: Google has never published comparative data showing that classic HTML pages massively outperform AMP in CWV. My observations from on-site audits show that 70-80% of AMP pages meet CWV thresholds without additional optimization, compared to about 40-50% of standard HTML pages.
The gap narrows when comparing well-optimized sites — modern frameworks (Next.js, Nuxt), efficient CDN, WebP/AVIF images. But for the middle market (WordPress, PrestaShop, custom-built sites), AMP remains a safer safety net than manual optimization.
What strategy should you prioritize in a post-AMP context?
The answer depends on your technical maturity. If your team masters modern front-end optimizations and has recurring dev resources, prioritize optimized classic HTML: you gain flexibility without losing performance.
If you operate on legacy sites, facing budget constraints or non-technical teams, AMP remains a defendable choice for simple editorial content (articles, news). Do not apply it to transactional or complex functional pages — AMP's limitations become prohibitive there.
Practical impact and recommendations
What should you do if you have already implemented AMP on your site?
First step: audit your Core Web Vitals on AMP pages via PageSpeed Insights and the CrUX report from Search Console. If your AMP pages consistently pass thresholds (LCP < 2.5s, FID < 100ms, CLS < 0.1), you can retain them risk-free.
If your AMP pages fail CWV, identify the causes: heavy third-party scripts (analytics, advertising), improperly sized images, layout shifts. Fix them using dedicated AMP components (amp-analytics, amp-img with required width/height attributes). If problems persist despite optimizations, consider migrating to optimized standard HTML.
How to optimize a standard HTML page to compete with AMP?
The strategy rests on three pillars. First pillar: Minimal JavaScript. Eliminate unnecessary libraries, switch to code-splitting, load third-party scripts asynchronously (defer, async). Aim for a total compressed JS bundle under 150 KB.
Second pillar: Next-gen images. Serve WebP or AVIF with fallback, implement native lazy loading (loading="lazy"), and systematically define width and height to avoid layout shifts. Third pillar: CDN and preloading. Use a modern edge CDN (Cloudflare, Fastly), add <link rel="preload"> hints for critical resources, and enable Brotli compression.
What mistakes to avoid in the AMP vs HTML trade-off?
Classic error: maintaining two versions (AMP + HTML) without sufficient resources. You create technical debt, duplicated content to manage (rel=amphtml / rel=canonical), and double the CWV audit surface. If you can't afford to maintain two high-performing stacks, choose one.
Another pitfall: suddenly abandoning AMP without a migration plan. If your AMP pages generate significant organic traffic, migrate gradually by segments (by category, by traffic volume). Test each wave for 28 days before expanding. Monitor CWV metrics and SERP positions continuously.
- Audit your Core Web Vitals across all your AMP pages using PageSpeed Insights and Search Console
- Compare the CWV performance between your AMP and classic HTML pages on similar content
- If you keep AMP, eliminate heavy third-party scripts and optimize image rendering
- If you migrate to HTML, implement native lazy loading, Brotli compression, and edge CDN
- Test any AMP → HTML migration on a limited sample for at least 28 days before global deployment
- Monitor behavioral signals (click-through rate, bounce rate) post-migration — they may compensate for a slight CWV drop
❓ Frequently Asked Questions
Les pages AMP ont-elles encore un avantage de ranking sur Google ?
Les Core Web Vitals s'appliquent-ils différemment aux pages AMP ?
Faut-il abandonner AMP après cette déclaration de Google ?
Une page HTML bien optimisée peut-elle surpasser une page AMP en performance ?
Comment migrer d'AMP vers HTML sans perdre du trafic organique ?
🎥 From the same video 39
Other SEO insights extracted from this same Google Search Central video · published on 01/04/2021
🎥 Watch the full video on YouTube →
💬 Comments (0)
Be the first to comment.