As we navigate the digital landscape of 2025, the conversation around mobile optimization has shifted from “making it work” to “making it perfect.” For years, the industry standard for speed was Google’s Accelerated Mobile Pages (AMP). However, with the maturation of Page Experience signals, many developers and site owners are asking the million-dollar question: Do we really need Google’s Accelerated Mobile Pages (AMP)?
Today, the battle for the top spot in search engine results pages (SERPs) is no longer won by adopting a specific framework like AMP, but by meeting the rigorous standards of Core Web Vitals (CWV). Below are 15 critical comparisons to help you decide if AMP is still a necessity or a legacy burden for your business in 2025.
- Speed vs. Measurement
AMP is a framework designed to guarantee speed by stripping down HTML and restricting JavaScript. Core Web Vitals, conversely, are a set of metrics (LCP, FID/INP, CLS) that measure the speed and stability of any page, regardless of how it was built. In 2025, you can achieve “passing” CWV scores without using AMP.
- The “Top Stories” Carousel Requirement
Historically, AMP was a prerequisite for appearing in Google’s mobile “Top Stories” carousel. This is no longer the case. Google now uses Core Web Vitals as the criteria for eligibility. If your standard responsive site is fast and stable, it can compete equally with AMP pages for this prime real estate.
- Ease of Implementation
AMP is essentially “speed in a box.” If you lack the resources for custom performance optimization, AMP is a shortcut to a fast site. However, for those with skilled developers, optimizing Core Web Vitals on a standard site allows for much greater creative freedom.
- Customization and Brand Identity
One of the primary reasons users ask, “Do we really need Google’s Accelerated Mobile Pages (AMP)?” is the restrictive design. AMP limits custom JavaScript and CSS, often making sites look like generic clones. Core Web Vitals allow you to maintain a complex, unique brand identity while still hitting high-performance benchmarks.
- Technical Debt and Maintenance
Maintaining two versions of every page (Canonical and AMP) creates significant technical debt. In 2025, the trend is toward “Unified Web Design,” where one high-performance codebase serves all users, reducing the workload for your development team.
- Interaction to Next Paint (INP)
In 2024 and 2025, INP replaced First Input Delay as a key metric. AMP’s restricted JavaScript can sometimes help with INP by keeping the main thread clear, but modern coding practices (like code-splitting and prioritizing tasks) can achieve the same results on non-AMP pages.
- Monetization and Ad Revenue
AMP often restricts the types of ad units you can display, which can lead to lower CPMs for publishers. By optimizing Core Web Vitals on a standard site, you have full control over your ad tech stack, allowing for more aggressive or innovative monetization strategies.
- Analytics and Tracking Accuracy
Tracking users across AMP and non-AMP versions of a site can lead to data fragmentation in Google Analytics 4 (GA4). A single-version site optimized for Core Web Vitals provides a cleaner, more accurate view of the user journey.
- First-Party Data Collection
AMP’s “cached” nature means users are often viewing content on Google’s servers rather than your own. This makes it harder to collect first-party data and set cookies for personalization, which are vital strategies in the 2025 cookieless world.
- Cumulative Layout Shift (CLS)
AMP is excellent at preventing layout shifts because it requires explicit sizing for all elements. However, modern CSS properties like aspect-ratio now allow non-AMP sites to manage CLS just as effectively, removing one of AMP’s previous “unfair” advantages.
- Third-Party Plugin Compatibility
Many WordPress plugins or specialized e-commerce tools do not work within the AMP framework. If your business relies on complex functionality (like advanced filters or custom calculators), you will find that optimizing for Core Web Vitals is much less restrictive.
- Hosting and CDN Independence
AMP relies heavily on the Google AMP Cache. By focusing on Core Web Vitals, you can choose your own high-performance CDN (like Cloudflare or Akamai) and maintain full control over how your content is cached and delivered.
- Mobile-First Indexing
Google’s mobile-first indexing focuses on the content of the mobile version of a site. If your AMP version is a “stripped-down” version of your desktop site, you might inadvertently be hiding content from Google. A responsive site ensures the indexable content is consistent across all devices.
- User Perception and “The Bolt”
The lightning bolt icon that used to signify AMP in search results has largely disappeared. Without that visual badge to drive clicks, the incentive to use AMP has shifted solely to the underlying performance, which—as established—can be replicated elsewhere.
- The Rise of PWAs and Edge Computing
In 2025, Progressive Web Apps (PWAs) and Edge computing (like Vercel or Netlify) provide speeds that rival or exceed AMP. These technologies offer the “app-like” feel that AMP initially promised, but with full web functionality.
Conclusion: The Final Verdict for 2025
So, do we really need Google’s Accelerated Mobile Pages (AMP)? For most businesses in 2025, the answer is no. Unless you are a high-volume news publisher with zero budget for technical SEO, the benefits of AMP are outweighed by its restrictions.
By focusing on Core Web Vitals, you invest in a future-proof, high-performance website that you own entirely. You gain the freedom to innovate, the ability to collect better data, and the power to provide a truly unique user experience without the “training wheels” of a restricted framework. For more guidance on technical performance, explore the Google Search Central documentation on Core Web Vitals.
