Experiment context
Hypothesis. Exact Match was expected to produce higher CTR and CR from more precise intent, while Phrase Match could keep reach and cheaper clicks in broader segments.
How the test ran. Both match types were active in the same campaigns; results were compared by region, project and direction.
Comparison design. Exact and Phrase ran together for four weeks; no traffic split was used.
Visual summary — Exact change vs Phrase
Each percentage below shows Exact Match performance relative to Phrase Match for the same geo and service. Negative CPA is good because Exact is cheaper per conversion.
Performance results
| Match type | Clicks | Impr. | Cost | Avg. CPC | CTR | Conversions | Conv. rate | Conv. value | CPA | conv value / conv |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exact | 5,810 | 26,431 | 11,827.45$ | 2.04$ | 21.98% | 295.04 | 5.08% | 18,526.35$ | 40.09$ | 62.79$ |
| Phrase | 1,996 | 11,409 | 3,226.03$ | 1.62$ | 17.49% | 94.67 | 4.74% | 7,560.92$ | 34.08$ | 79.87$ |
Result. DE: Phrase remains preferred because Exact improved CTR and CR but increased CPA 17%.
| Match type | Clicks | Impr. | Cost | Avg. CPC | CTR | Conversions | Conv. rate | Conv. value | CPA | conv value / conv |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exact | 993 | 3,669 | 1,378.43$ | 1.39$ | 27.06% | 47.17 | 4.75% | 3,455.20$ | 29.22$ | 73.25$ |
| Phrase | 1,357 | 6,294 | 2,111.92$ | 1.56$ | 21.56% | 56.97 | 4.20% | 3,772.99$ | 37.07$ | 66.23$ |
Result. EU: Exact won across CTR, CPC, CR and CPA; roll out Exact.
| Match type | Clicks | Impr. | Cost | Avg. CPC | CTR | Conversions | Conv. rate | Conv. value | CPA | conv value / conv |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exact | 406 | 2,666 | 956.44$ | 2.36$ | 15.23% | 13.88 | 3.42% | 1,049.66$ | 68.89$ | 75.62$ |
| Phrase | 5,601 | 27,306 | 15,807.37$ | 2.82$ | 20.51% | 308.05 | 5.50% | 19,600.29$ | 51.31$ | 63.63$ |
Result. WW: Phrase won; Exact had 26% lower CTR, 38% lower CR and 34% higher CPA.
| Match type | Clicks | Impr. | Cost | Avg. CPC | CTR | Conversions | Conv. rate | Conv. value | CPA | conv value / conv |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exact | 4,165 | 18,094 | 17,592.44$ | 4.22$ | 23.02% | 477.31 | 11.46% | 30,154.85$ | 36.86$ | 63.18$ |
| Phrase | 4,807 | 27,136 | 18,151.73$ | 3.78$ | 17.71% | 376.16 | 7.83% | 31,886.05$ | 48.26$ | 84.77$ |
Result. US: Exact won; CTR increased 30%, CR increased 46% and CPA decreased 24%.
| Match type | Clicks | Impr. | Cost | Avg. CPC | CTR | Conversions | Conv. rate | Conv. value | CPA | conv value / conv |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exact | 1,887 | 23,108 | 2,349.57$ | 1.25$ | 8.17% | 27.42 | 1.45% | 2,432.22$ | 85.69$ | 88.70$ |
| Phrase | 1,060 | 26,229 | 1,314.80$ | 1.24$ | 4.04% | 15.09 | 1.42% | 1,443.75$ | 87.16$ | 95.68$ |
Result. EU: Exact won on service6, with roughly 2× CTR and slightly lower CPA.
| Match type | Clicks | Impr. | Cost | Avg. CPC | CTR | Conversions | Conv. rate | Conv. value | CPA | conv value / conv |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exact | 1,217 | 17,178 | 3,100.56$ | 2.55$ | 7.08% | 45.07 | 3.70% | 3,737.47$ | 68.79$ | 82.93$ |
| Phrase | 589 | 15,993 | 1,476.93$ | 2.51$ | 3.68% | 21.01 | 3.57% | 2,201.35$ | 70.30$ | 104.78$ |
Result. US: Exact won on service6, with 92% higher CTR and slightly lower CPA.
| Match type | Clicks | Impr. | Cost | Avg. CPC | CTR | Conversions | Conv. rate | Conv. value | CPA | conv value / conv |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exact | 406 | 2,666 | 956.44$ | 2.36$ | 15.23% | 13.88 | 3.42% | 1,049.66$ | 68.89$ | 75.62$ |
| Phrase | 222 | 3,160 | 484.52$ | 2.18$ | 7.03% | 8.38 | 3.78% | 536.85$ | 57.79$ | 64.06$ |
Result. EU: Phrase won; Exact doubled CTR but produced lower CR and 19% higher CPA.
Conclusions
Overall verdict: market- and direction-specific. Exact won 4 of the 7 retained geo/direction comparisons, while Phrase won 3. Exact was consistently stronger for game-2 service6 and won game-2 service3 in EU and US; Phrase remained preferable for service3 in DE and WW and for game-3 service11 in EU. Use regional match-type decisions rather than one account-wide rollout.
Limitations. Exact and Phrase ran simultaneously without a randomized traffic split. Traffic allocation, query overlap and cannibalization may affect the observed differences.