Is AMP still a valuable SEO tool for fast pages?

Why does Google maintain AMP when Core Web Vitals already exist?

Mueller's statement comes against a backdrop where many SEOs were wondering if AMP still has a future. With the introduction of Core Web Vitals as an official ranking factor, some believed Google would gradually abandon this technology in favor of a more neutral approach to performance.

The answer is clear: AMP and Core Web Vitals are not competitors but are complementary. AMP ensures a standardized architecture that mechanically produces fast pages, while CWV measure actual performance from the user’s side. Google continues to favor AMP in certain premium areas of the results, including the Top Stories carousel.

Mueller also mentions a possible extension of AMP to other locations in the SERP. This phrase is deliberately vague: no timeline, no details on the formats involved. This is typical of Google's communications that leave a door open without firm commitments.

What does this concretely change for content publishers?

For news sites and media, the message is clear: AMP remains the entry ticket to the Top Stories carousel. This highly visible placement generates significant traffic volumes, and no equivalent alternative exists today without AMP.

Sites that have abandoned AMP in favor of only focusing on CWV need to reconsider their strategy. Unless there are exceptions, they can no longer qualify for the carousel, even with impeccable technical performance. The format remains a structural prerequisite, not just a question of speed.

What subtle signals can be detected in this statement?

The mention of a possible extension to other areas of the SERP is intriguing. Google regularly tests enriched visual formats that could theoretically accommodate AMP pages: product carousels, enriched results, video snippets. But nothing concrete at this stage.

This ambiguity is problematic for investment decisions. Developing and maintaining an AMP version represents a significant technical cost. Without visibility on future benefits, it's challenging to justify this effort beyond news sites that are already constrained by it.

• AMP is not threatened in the short to medium term according to Google, unlike recurring rumors
• The Top Stories carousel remains reserved for AMP pages, with no announced easing
• A possible extension to other SERP locations is mentioned without a timeline or guarantee
• Core Web Vitals do not replace AMP, they measure two different dimensions of performance
• Sites that have abandoned AMP need to reassess that decision if Top Stories traffic was significant

Is this statement consistent with what we observe on the ground?

Yes and no. Indeed, the Top Stories carousel remains exclusively AMP and no major evolution has been detected for months. News sites that maintain their AMP version continue to benefit from this privileged placement.

But the promise of extension to other areas of the SERP has been repeated for years without actualization. We have seen some sporadic tests of AMP carousels outside of news, but nothing deployed on a large scale. This part of the statement seems more like a communication window than a committed roadmap. [To be verified]: no public data confirms significant investment from Google in extending AMP.

What nuances should be added to this official discourse?

Mueller states that AMP “will not disappear anytime soon,” which is different from saying “AMP will develop massively.” The tone is defensive rather than enthusiastic. Google maintains the technology because it serves its interests in the news segment, not necessarily because it believes in its universal future.

Another point: AMP imposes strict technical and editorial control that benefits Google. AMP pages are hosted on its infrastructure (Google cache), giving it total control over the user experience. This is significant: maintaining AMP means maintaining this control. Core Web Vitals, on the other hand, provide more autonomy to publishers.

Finally, if AMP were really to expand, we would see clear announcements, public betas, detailed guidelines. None of that exists today. The gap between official communication and operational reality is sufficiently large to remain cautious.

In what cases does this AMP strategy not make sense?

For e-commerce sites, SaaS, corporate sites, or niche blogs, AMP provides strictly no measurable benefit. The Top Stories carousel does not concern them, and no other SERP feature currently privileges them.

Even for a news site, if Top Stories traffic accounts for less than 5-10% of total SEO traffic, the ROI of AMP becomes questionable. The cost of development, maintenance, and synchronization with the standard version can outweigh the gains. Some medium-sized publishers have actually abandoned AMP with no significant negative impact by aggressively optimizing their CWV.

Should you invest in AMP if you're not a news site?

No, except in very specific cases. If your site does not produce content eligible for the Top Stories carousel (general news, current affairs, sports, politics), AMP will not bring you anything today. Focus your resources on optimizing Core Web Vitals, which directly impact ranking.

The only exception concerns sites that test experimental formats and have the technical resources to closely monitor Google's tests. But this represents less than 1% of websites.

How can you optimize your AMP strategy if you're already committed?

If you are a media outlet or publisher benefiting from the Top Stories carousel, make sure to keep your AMP version updated. AMP errors are penalized quickly: an invalid page disappears from the carousel in a matter of hours.

Regularly audit your AMP pages with the official validator. Ensure that content parity between the AMP version and the standard version is maintained: Google may demote AMP pages that present content that is too different or incomplete. Also, monitor the Core Web Vitals of your AMP pages: they must remain excellent to maintain the advantage.

Finally, do not put all your eggs in the AMP basket. Optimize your standard pages in parallel so they perform as well as possible. If Google ultimately decides to open the carousel to non-AMP pages (a low probability but not zero), you need to be ready.

What mistakes should be avoided in AMP implementation?

The classic mistake: creating a stripped-down AMP version to save time. Google dislikes this and can penalize you. The AMP version must offer the same editorial content, the same essential media, and the same informational value as the standard version.

Another pitfall: neglecting canonical tags. The AMP page must point to the standard version in canonical, and the standard version must declare the existence of the AMP version via rel=amphtml. A poor configuration creates indexing and cannibalization issues.

• Validate all AMP pages with the official Google AMP Test tool before going live
• Check content parity between AMP and standard versions (text, images, essential videos)
• Properly configure canonical and amphtml tags between the two versions
• Monitor the Core Web Vitals of AMP pages just like standard pages
• Monthly audit AMP errors in Google Search Console
• Do not invest in AMP if the site is not eligible for the Top Stories carousel