---
title: "How three CTR trackers reported three different position-1 rates"
url: https://surfil.com/blog/organic-ctr-by-position-2026
section: reports
language: en
published: 2026-07-11T00:00:00.000Z
modified: 2026-07-11T00:00:00.000Z
author: Adam Hafez
topics: ["Technical SEO", "AI search", "Analytics"]
---

# How three CTR trackers reported three different position-1 rates

## The short answer

Three independent CTR trackers published position-1 organic click-through rates that disagree by 12 points: Backlinko found 27.6% from 4 million search results, First Page Sage's meta-analysis put it at 39.8%, and Advanced Web Ranking's continuous tracker reports quarter-over-quarter shifts rather than a fixed number at all. The gap is method, not disagreement about reality.

## Key takeaways

- Backlinko's analysis of 4 million Google search results found a 27.6% click-through rate at position 1, with the top three results capturing 54.4% of all clicks.
- First Page Sage's 2026-titled meta-analysis (its edition before September 2026) reports position 1 at 39.8%, falling to 18.7% at position 2 and 1.6% by position 10.
- Advanced Web Ranking's continuously updated tracker reports a quarter-over-quarter percentage-point shift across 22 industries, not one fixed baseline curve.
- Position-1 estimates from the three trackers span 27.6% to 39.8%, a 12-point gap driven by different data and formats, not contradictory measurements.
- Ahrefs' own by-position breakdown shows AI Overviews cut click-through rate by 58% at position 1, 50.8% at position 2, and 46.4% at position 3.

Ask three trackers what click-through rate the Google's number one organic result gets and you
get three different answers: 27.6%, 39.8%, and no single figure at all. Backlinko ran one
large-sample analysis. First Page Sage built a meta-analysis of several outside sources. Advanced
Web Ranking runs a continuous, multi-industry panel that reports quarter-over-quarter shifts
rather than a fixed curve. None of the three is wrong; each answers a differently framed question,
and averaging them together would produce a number none of the three trackers actually measured.

## Three curves, three methods

| Tracker | Data source | Sample | Reporting format | Position 1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Backlinko | Semrush-aggregated Google Search Console data | 4 million search results across 1,312,881 pages and 12,166,560 queries | One-time analysis, last updated April 2025 | 27.6% |
| First Page Sage | Meta-analysis of Backlinko, Sistrix, Wordstream, BrightLocal, LocalIQ, Danny Sullivan and Search Engine Journal, plus its own internal data | Not disclosed | Edition published May 2025, since replaced | 39.8% |
| Advanced Web Ranking | Its own Google Search Console-based panel across 22 industries | Millions of search terms and thousands of websites, international, split by desktop and mobile | Continuous since September 2015; reports quarter-over-quarter percentage-point change, not a fixed curve | Not published as one figure |

First Page Sage's earlier edition is the only one of the three published as a full ten-position table:
39.8% at position 1, 18.7% at position 2, 10.2% at position 3, 7.2% at position 4, 5.1% at
position 5, 4.4% at position 6, 3.0% at position 7, 2.1% at position 8, 1.9% at position 9 and
1.6% at position 10. Its September 2026 edition has since replaced this curve: it reports blended position 1 at 7.1% (22.6% with no AI answer, 3.6% with one) and calls 39.8% its 2025 figure. Backlinko's text gives position 1 and the top-three combined share, 54.4% of all
clicks, with the rest of the curve in a chart. Advanced Web Ranking's tool renders an interactive
curve rather than a static number, refreshed monthly since September 2015, most recently for July
2026.

## Why the numbers do not agree

**They start from different data.** Backlinko's 27.6% comes from one pull of real Google Search
Console accounts, aggregated through Semrush. Backlinko does not say it excluded SERPs with
ads or other features, which suppress clicks. First Page Sage's
39.8% is a meta-analysis that leans on Backlinko's own numbers among several other sources, plus
First Page Sage's undisclosed internal data, and the company's writeup says its CTRs apply to
results pages with no other elements such as maps, images, videos or shopping results. A meta-analysis inherits its input
studies' blind spots without disclosing which ones dominate the blend, which plausibly explains much of the gap
between the two.

**They measure different things.** Backlinko and First Page Sage each publish a static snapshot:
one number per position, true as of one point in time. Advanced Web Ranking's quarterly report
does the opposite. Its Q1 2026 release compares Q1 2026 averages against Q4 2025 rather than
stating a baseline figure, reporting that the first five desktop positions rose by a combined
10.54 percentage points quarter over quarter while mobile position 1 fell 2.20 points, across 22
tracked industries. A tracker built to show change cannot be read as a single comparable baseline
next to trackers built to show a snapshot.

**Device and vertical mix are not held constant.** Advanced Web Ranking splits desktop from
mobile because, in its own words, CTR runs higher on mobile at the top positions; Backlinko and
First Page Sage both report a single blended figure. None of the three discloses an identical
vertical mix, so a tracker weighted toward informational queries will read differently from one
weighted toward commercial or local intent, even before any difference in method.

## The AI Overview breakdown

None of these three baseline curves accounts for AI Overviews. For that, Ahrefs' own study is the
more useful source, and this site has already covered its headline finding that position-1 organic
CTR fell 58% between December 2023 and December 2025 when an AI Overview appears; see [Ahrefs: AI
Overviews cut position-1 CTR by 58%](/blog/ai-overviews-click-through-rate-decline) for that
full comparison rather than repeating it here.

The same Ahrefs report also breaks the decline down by position, a cut this site has not
previously cited: -58.0% at position 1, -50.8% at position 2, -46.4% at position 3, tapering to
-19.4% by position 10. Ahrefs describes the impact as "less dramatic" further down the page,
noting that positions 2 through 10 already have low click-through rates. That study measures a
different thing from the three baseline curves above, so it does not explain the gap between
Backlinko's 27.6% and First Page Sage's 39.8%.

## Why we care

**A position-1 CTR number without its tracker attached is not a citable fact.** Whether a deck
says 27.6% or 39.8% for the top spot changes forecast traffic by roughly 44%, and the difference
comes entirely from which tracker's dataset and definition of "position 1" is behind the number,
not from any disagreement about how Google actually behaves.

**The tracker built to show change, not a snapshot, is arguably the most honest of the three.**
Advanced Web Ranking's refusal to publish one fixed curve, instead reporting how CTR moved this
quarter, is a harder number to misquote in a slide than a single static percentage, even though it
is less convenient to cite. The two snapshot trackers are useful for a ballpark; the quarterly
tracker is useful for knowing whether that ballpark is still shrinking.

## Common questions

### Which organic CTR number should I use for position 1?

Say which tracker it comes from. Backlinko's 27.6% is a single large-sample snapshot from April 2025, First Page Sage's 39.8% is a meta-analysis of several outside sources with no disclosed sample size, and Advanced Web Ranking does not publish one fixed number at all. "Organic CTR at position 1 is X%" is not a complete claim without naming the tracker and the date.

### Why is First Page Sage's number so much higher than Backlinko's?

First Page Sage's figure is a meta-analysis built partly from Backlinko's own data plus several other sources, weighted toward what the site describes as cleaner organic SERPs. Backlinko's 27.6% is a single dataset pulled through Semrush from real Google Search Console accounts, and it does not say it excluded results with ads, local packs or other features that depress clicks.

### Does any of these trackers account for AI Overviews?

Not in the baseline curves of Backlinko and First Page Sage's earlier edition. Advanced Web Ranking shows AI Overview SERPs as a separate curve. Ahrefs' dedicated study, covered separately on this site, is the one with a published by-position breakdown of the AI Overview effect itself.

## Sources

1. [We Analyzed 4 Million Google Search Results. Here's What We Learned About Organic CTR](https://backlinko.com/google-ctr-stats) - Backlinko (primary)
2. [Google Click-Through Rates (CTRs) by Ranking Position in 2026](https://firstpagesage.com/reports/google-click-through-rates-ctrs-by-ranking-position/) - First Page Sage
3. [Google Organic CTR Tool](https://www.advancedwebranking.com/free-seo-tools/google-organic-ctr) - Advanced Web Ranking
4. [Google CTR Stats - Changes Report for Q1 2026](https://www.advancedwebranking.com/blog/ctr-google-2026-q1) - Advanced Web Ranking
5. [Update: AI Overviews Reduce Clicks by 58%](https://ahrefs.com/blog/ai-overviews-reduce-clicks-update) - Ahrefs