This Doesn't Mean What You Think It Means
So, I got this unsolicited PR email from james@presscoast.com recently. It wasn’t sent to my PR contact email, so it kinda pissed me off and while I went to blacklist the address, I had a look at the content. It was one of a few similar emails I had received recently on behalf of an Indian SEO shop called OneLittleWeb, it seems. The email was meant to pimp this marketing material, which they call a “study”:
https://onelittleweb.com/ai-chatbots-vs-search-engines/
They are pushing PR that Google is still important and that people use search engines more than AI. No way. 🙃 I think this is because they haven’t figured out how to SEO scam AIs yet. Well, that can only be a matter of time, but for now, they are pushing this nonsense to tell you that their sleazy business is still important:
Google Gets 26x More Traffic Than ChatGPT, Is Search Still Untouchable?
Is ChatGPT catching up to Google, or is it just noise in the search space? As AI chatbots rise, many assume they’re replacing traditional search engines—but the numbers tell a different story. Google still commands the web, while ChatGPT, despite rapid growth, plays a much smaller role in daily usage.
According to traffic data by onelittleweb.com from April 2024 to March 2025, Google received 1.63 trillion visits, averaging 136.0 billion monthly and 4.7 billion daily. In comparison, ChatGPT saw 47.7 billion visits—about 4.0 billion per month and 185.2 million per day.
That means Google gets 26x more daily traffic than ChatGPT. The scale gap is massive—even as AI-generated answers gain momentum, traditional search remains the default starting point for most web users.
See, they might think 26x the traffic is a massive head start, and it is, but I actually find it shocking that Google only has 26x more traffic than ChatGPT. I would have assumed Google’s traffic is at least a thousand times that of ChatGPT. If this data is correct, a lot more people are using ChatGPT in lieu of search engines than I had thought.
And even though this is propaganda, the data might actually point at the truth. It was conceived as propaganda in the opposite direction of what it actually says, after all. And even if it is widely off the mark, the orders of magnitude are probably correct. And 10x is a lot less than 100x or 1000x. 🤔