One Site’s Google AI Opt-Out Test Estimated 23% of Search Clicks Came From AI Features
A controlled Zyppy SEO experiment compared periods with Google AI features enabled and disabled. Its results suggest AI Overviews and AI Mode may drive direct clicks and lift regular organic click-through rates, but the findings are limited to one site.
Google does not provide publishers with a separate click total for AI Overviews or AI Mode. That leaves site owners trying to determine whether visibility in Google’s AI features produces meaningful referral traffic, merely impressions, or both.
A controlled experiment by Cyrus Shepard of Zyppy SEO offers one directional answer for a single site. After opting Zyppy out of Google AI features for 28 days and then re-enabling them, Shepard estimated that AI Overviews and AI Mode accounted for about 21% of the site’s Google Search clicks directly. When a possible lift in conventional organic click-through rate was included, the combined effect reached an estimated 23% of search clicks.
The result is notable, but it is not a market-wide benchmark. It is one site’s experiment, and its AI click estimates necessarily rely on inference rather than a Google-provided AI click metric.
What Zyppy tested
Zyppy ran its test during September 2026. The site was opted out of Google AI features from September 1 through September 28, described as the AI-OFF period. AI feature participation was re-enabled on September 29, creating the AI-ON comparison period.
The analysis used Google Search Console data including clicks, impressions, click-through rate, average position, queries, and landing pages. It also used Google’s Generative AI Features report to identify impressions associated with AI features.
As documented in Zyppy’s experiment write-up, the aim was to compare total search clicks between the enabled and disabled periods while accounting for rankings and changes in the query mix. That design matters because raw traffic changes alone cannot establish that AI visibility caused a difference. Rankings, seasonality, search demand, page changes, and shifting query composition can all affect clicks.
The estimated direct contribution from AI features
Zyppy reported that AI Overviews and AI Mode generated roughly 10% of its total Google Search impressions. Yet the analysis estimated those features produced approximately 21% of all search clicks.
The proposed explanation is a higher click-through rate for AI-feature impressions than the site’s overall baseline. Zyppy estimated an AI-feature CTR of about 0.9%, with a range of 0.7% to 1.1%. Its baseline CTR was approximately 0.4%.
| Measure in Zyppy’s analysis | Reported estimate | What it indicates |
|---|---|---|
| AI-feature share of impressions | About 10% | How often the site appeared in tracked Google AI features |
| Direct AI-feature share of clicks | About 21% | Estimated clicks attributed to AI Overviews and AI Mode |
| Estimated AI-feature CTR | About 0.9%, range 0.7% to 1.1% | Estimated click rate for AI-feature impressions |
| Baseline CTR | About 0.4% | The site’s broader click-through-rate reference point |
| Regular organic CTR lift | About 2.3% | Estimated halo effect when AI features were enabled |
These figures should not be read as evidence that 10% of AI impressions will always yield 21% of clicks. They describe Zyppy’s observed conditions and its model for estimating unavailable click data. A site’s topic mix, ranking positions, citation frequency, audience, country, device mix, and query types could all change the relationship between AI impressions and clicks.
The possible organic CTR halo effect
The analysis did not stop at clicks estimated to come directly from AI features. Zyppy also found that regular organic CTR increased by about 2.3% when AI features were enabled. The effect was more pronounced for URLs with stronger AI visibility.
This is described as a halo effect: appearing in an AI Overview or AI Mode response may increase a searcher’s likelihood of selecting the same brand in conventional organic results. It could reflect greater exposure or reinforcement of the site as a relevant source during the same search journey.
Importantly, this is an interpretation from the experiment, not proof of a universal causal mechanism. Google’s reporting does not expose separate AI clicks, so neither the direct AI estimate nor the halo calculation is a simple report export. Still, the distinction is valuable for measurement. A team that only looks for traffic explicitly attributed to an AI result may miss changes in the broader search-result page behavior around AI visibility.
Adding the estimated direct contribution and the organic CTR lift led Zyppy to estimate that Google AI features influenced roughly 23% of its total search clicks.
Why AI impressions alone are not enough
Google’s Generative AI Features reporting gives publishers a way to see AI-related impressions, but impressions are not clicks. A citation can appear in an answer without attracting a visit, and a result can benefit indirectly if the AI response makes the source more recognizable or credible to searchers.
That makes three measurements especially important:
- AI-feature impressions, to understand the scale of visibility.
- Total organic clicks and CTR, segmented by affected pages and queries where possible.
- Ranking position, query mix, and landing-page changes, to rule out alternative explanations for a traffic change.
For SEO planning, it is also useful to separate direct referral value from wider search visibility. AI citations may support discovery even when a dashboard cannot assign every resulting click cleanly to an AI module.
How to apply the lesson without overgeneralizing
The clearest lesson is methodological, not that every publisher should expect a 23% click contribution. If an organization can validly change its participation in Google AI features, a time-bounded opt-out and re-enable test can help estimate the impact on that specific site.
Before treating the result as meaningful, teams should define a comparison window, preserve a record of content and technical changes, and examine whether rankings or query demand changed materially. Segmenting by landing page and query set can be more informative than relying on a domain-level total, particularly if only some content is frequently surfaced in AI responses.
The test should also be approached cautiously. Removing a site from AI features can reduce exposure during the test period, and short windows may be affected by normal volatility. The right objective is not to produce a universal AI traffic percentage. It is to make a better site-specific decision about whether AI-feature inclusion appears to contribute to discovery and clicks.
If you need a structured starting point for assessing how your site is positioned for AI-driven discovery, create a GEO Search Leads account. It can help you assess GEO readiness and identify optimization opportunities around content accessibility, entities, and signals that may affect whether your pages are understood and surfaced in generative search experiences.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did Google report that AI Overviews and AI Mode sent Zyppy 21% of its clicks?
No. Zyppy estimated the 21% direct click contribution by comparing periods when its site was opted out of Google AI features and when it was re-enabled. Google does not provide separate AI-feature click totals in the reporting described by the experiment.
What was the difference between the 21% and 23% estimates?
The 21% figure was Zyppy’s estimate of direct clicks from AI Overviews and AI Mode. The approximately 23% figure also included an estimated 2.3% lift in regular organic CTR, described as a possible halo effect.
Does the experiment prove AI features improve organic CTR for every site?
No. The experiment involved one site and the analysis is directional. The reported organic CTR lift may not apply to other sites, industries, query sets, or search audiences.
Can Google Search Console show AI-feature impressions?
Google’s Generative AI Features report can be used to measure AI-related impressions. The limitation highlighted by Zyppy’s test is that separate AI-feature click data is not exposed, requiring indirect measurement for click estimates.
Conclusion
Zyppy’s opt-out experiment is useful evidence that Google AI visibility may have a measurable relationship with clicks, including effects beyond a directly cited AI result. Its percentages are not a transferable forecast, but the testing approach gives SEO teams a practical framework for evaluating AI-feature impact on their own sites rather than treating AI impressions as a complete traffic measurement.