Ranking first in Google no longer tells you how much traffic a page is likely to receive. When an AI Overview appears above the organic results, the same number-one position can produce dramatically fewer clicks than it does on a standard search results page.
The latest AI Overview CTR statistics also show why one headline percentage is not enough. In July 2026, the top organic result on a US desktop SERP earned a 9.69% CTR when an AI Overview appeared, compared with 20.02% without one. On mobile, the gap was even wider at 12.02% versus 35.74%.
Those figures do not mean every site should expect the same decline. Different studies measure different positions, query groups, devices, citation status, and time periods, so a 52% gap in one dataset and a 58% estimate in another can both describe different parts of the same change.
What the Latest AI Overview CTR Statistics Show
Recent datasets consistently associate AI Overview SERPs with lower organic CTR than comparable searches without the feature. The size of the gap changes considerably depending on ranking position, device, methodology, and what researchers use as the comparison group.
| Metric | Result |
|---|---|
| US desktop position #1 CTR with AI Overview, July 2026 | 9.69% |
| US desktop position #1 CTR without AI Overview | 20.02% |
| Desktop position #1 difference | -52% |
| US mobile position #1 CTR with AI Overview | 12.02% |
| US mobile position #1 CTR without AI Overview | 35.74% |
| Mobile position #1 difference | -66% |
| US desktop zero-click rate with AI Overview | 74.3% |
| US desktop zero-click rate without AI Overview | 53.6% |
| Ahrefs estimated position #1 CTR impact | -58% |
| Seer February 2026 organic CTR with AIO | 2.36% |
| Seer February 2026 organic CTR without AIO | 3.82% |
The July figures come from Advanced Web Ranking’s Google Organic CTR data, which separates results by factors including position, device, and SERP features. Its 2026 figures are particularly useful here because they show how large the gap was later in the year rather than relying only on frequently quoted 2025 benchmarks.
The table should not be read as one universal CTR benchmark. Seer’s 2.36% figure describes CTR across its tracked AIO query cohort, for example, while AWR’s 9.69% figure refers specifically to the first organic position on US desktop searches.
Why There Is No Single AI Overview CTR
CTR studies often get quoted side by side even though their methodologies differ. Once ranking position, denominator, query cohort, and comparison group are separated, many of the apparent contradictions disappear.
Position-Level CTR and Query-Level CTR Measure Different Things
AWR compares click-through rates at specific organic positions on SERPs with and without AI Overviews. That makes the data useful when the question is how much traffic a ranking position may produce under two different SERP layouts.
Seer takes a broader approach by grouping tracked queries according to whether an AI Overview appears and whether the tracked brand earns a citation. Its dataset is better suited to a different question: how organic performance differs across AIO, non-AIO, cited, and uncited search cohorts.
Relative CTR Loss Is Not the Same as Raw CTR
A reported 52% decline does not mean the resulting CTR is 52%. If position one falls from 20.02% to 9.69%, the raw CTR is 9.69%, while the relative gap between the two figures is roughly 52%.
Published AI Overview statistics often mix these two forms of measurement in summaries and headlines. Comparing a relative percentage change from one study with a raw CTR from another can make the datasets look far more inconsistent than they really are.
Google AI Overview CTR at Position One Is About Half as High
Position one remains valuable, but its traffic value looks very different when an AI Overview occupies the upper part of the SERP. In AWR’s July 2026 US desktop data, position one recorded 20.02% CTR without an AIO and 9.69% when one was present, leaving the AIO figure roughly 52% lower.
Traffic forecasts based only on ranking position can therefore overshoot badly on queries that frequently trigger AI Overviews. A page may hold the same numbered position and continue collecting impressions while visits fall because the search layout above it has changed.
Historical rank-to-click assumptions become less dependable under those conditions. Position one on a conventional SERP and position one beneath an AI-generated answer are no longer equivalent traffic assets.
AI Overview CTR Loss Is Larger on Mobile
The mobile gap in AWR’s July data was even wider. The first organic result recorded 35.74% CTR on US mobile searches without an AI Overview and 12.02% when one appeared, a difference of about 66%.
A sitewide CTR average can hide that device effect. Two pages with similar ranking patterns and query intent may produce noticeably different traffic outcomes when one receives a much larger share of its impressions from mobile search.
The broader lesson is not that mobile always loses exactly two thirds of its clicks. Device mix now deserves a place beside ranking position and SERP type when a team tries to explain why Search Console impressions and visits have moved in different directions.
AI Overview CTR by Organic Position
Ahrefs provides another view because its analysis estimates the effect across the first ten organic positions. The study used 300,000 keywords split between queries with AI Overviews and informational queries without them, then adjusted the comparison for broader CTR changes affecting informational search.
| Organic position | Estimated CTR impact with AI Overview |
|---|---|
| 1 | -58.0% |
| 2 | -50.8% |
| 3 | -46.4% |
| 4 | -38.8% |
| 5 | -32.6% |
| 6 | -30.5% |
| 7 | -29.7% |
| 8 | -28.8% |
| 9 | -29.7% |
| 10 | -19.4% |
The estimated gap becomes smaller farther down the first page, but it does not disappear after the first two positions. Even position ten showed an estimated reduction of about 19% in the Ahrefs model.
The value of the Ahrefs AI Overview CTR study is the shape of that curve rather than a claim that every number applies universally. It suggests that AI Overview SERPs can change click opportunity across much of page one, not only for the organic result immediately below the generated answer.
2026 CTR Data Shows an Upturn but Not a Return to Baseline
Monthly CTR figures did not continue moving downward throughout 2026. Seer’s tracked AIO queries recorded 1.31% organic CTR in December 2025, followed by 2.33% in January and 2.36% in February 2026, while queries without an AI Overview recorded 3.82% in February.
AWR’s monthly position-one curve also moved upward later in the year. US desktop CTR on AIO SERPs was 1.96% in April and 9.69% in July, although the July non-AIO benchmark remained much higher at 20.02%.
Those movements should be read carefully because monthly datasets can change in composition. They nevertheless make the simple narrative of an uninterrupted CTR collapse difficult to defend; the gap can narrow while remaining large.
Does an AI Overview Citation Increase CTR?
Seer’s data suggests that citation status is associated with a substantial difference in organic performance inside AIO searches. For every one million informational organic impressions, searches without an AIO produced roughly 33,500 clicks, AIO searches that cited the tracked brand produced about 20,743, and AIO searches without a brand citation produced about 9,445.
The cited group therefore recorded roughly 120% more organic clicks per impression than the uncited group on AIO searches. That is a strong association, but the dataset does not prove that adding a citation by itself causes the entire difference.
The comparison with searches that had no AI Overview also matters. Even cited brands remained roughly 38% below the no-AIO result for informational searches, so a citation appears to improve a site’s position inside a smaller click pool rather than recreate the traffic pattern of a traditional SERP. The Seer Interactive AIO CTR analysis provides the underlying comparison.
Zero-Click Search Widens the Traffic Gap
Lower CTR is only one side of the change. AWR’s July 2026 US desktop dataset reported a 74.3% zero-click rate when an AI Overview appeared, compared with 53.6% on searches without one.
Nearly three quarters of the measured AIO searches therefore ended without a click, even though conventional organic results remained available. That helps explain why ranking reports can look relatively stable while visits decline.
A URL may continue appearing in positions one through three while users get enough information from the generated answer to stop on the results page. Ranking still matters, but it now describes only part of the available traffic opportunity.
AI Overview CTR and AI Mode Should Not Be Mixed Together
AI Overviews and Google AI Mode are related products, but they are not the same search surface. An AI Overview sits inside the normal Google results page alongside conventional links, whereas AI Mode provides a separate conversational search experience.
A useful CTR benchmark has to keep those environments separate. Combining AI Mode usage or referral numbers with AI Overview CTR creates a blended figure that no longer describes how users behave on either product particularly well.
Our Google AI Mode statistics article tracks that product separately for this reason. Keeping the two datasets apart makes it easier to identify whether a change comes from an AI-generated block above conventional results or from users entering a different Google search interface.
What AI Overview CTR Means for Search Console Reporting
Industry benchmarks can show what is happening across large groups of searches, but they cannot tell a publisher exactly how many clicks its own AI Overview appearances gained or lost. A page can show relatively stable impressions and position in Search Console while its CTR changes because the balance between AIO and non-AIO searches has shifted.
Device mix, query intent, and citation status add further variation. That makes it risky to attribute a CTR decline to a weak title or snippet before checking whether the SERP itself has changed.
Google’s newer AI reporting helps with part of that diagnosis without yet removing every attribution gap. Our Google Search Console AI report breakdown covers the dimensions Google exposes and the AI-specific click and query information marketers still cannot isolate cleanly.
Before changing a title or snippet because CTR has fallen, check:
- whether rankings actually changed;
- whether AI Overviews became more common for the affected queries;
- whether the CTR decline is concentrated on mobile;
- whether the site appears as a cited source.
A title or snippet rewrite should come later, once those factors have been ruled out. Otherwise, a publisher can end up editing a page whose CTR problem comes from the SERP layout rather than from the search result itself.
One Percentage Cannot Describe the 2026 CTR Shift
Current AI Overview CTR statistics do not support one universal traffic-loss percentage. What they do show is that the same organic position can carry very different traffic value depending on whether an AI Overview appears, which device the searcher uses, and whether the site is cited.
The 2026 datasets also show some upward movement from earlier CTR lows, while cited brands recorded substantially better results than uncited brands in Seer’s sample. Neither pattern brings AIO search performance back to the levels measured on comparable searches without an AI Overview.
SEO reporting needs to account for that difference rather than treating ranking position as a complete traffic forecast. Position still matters, but its value increasingly depends on what Google places above the result and how much of the user’s search journey ends before a conventional organic click ever happens.