Improving the factors behind Quality Score — expected CTR, ad relevance, and landing page experience — often improves campaign efficiency. Quality Score itself is a diagnostic metric, not an optimization goal, and its relationship with CPC varies by auction. Diagnose by adding Quality Score sub-component columns to your Keywords view, filtering to high-spend keywords with below-average ratings, and fixing whichever component is weakest. A profitable campaign with a 6/10 Quality Score is usually more valuable than an unprofitable campaign with a 10/10.
What Is Quality Score in Google Ads?
Quality Score is a 1–10 diagnostic metric assigned at the keyword level in Google Search and Shopping campaigns. It estimates how well your keyword, ad, and landing page align with user intent, relative to other advertisers competing for the same queries. Google uses it to help advertisers identify weaknesses in the keyword–ad–landing page relationship — not as a performance target in itself.
Quality Score matters because the underlying factors it diagnoses — relevance, usefulness, and user experience — are the same factors that influence how efficiently your ads compete in auctions. Improving those factors tends to improve business outcomes. Improving the numerical score without improving those fundamentals does not.
What Quality Score Measures
Quality Score is based on three components, each rated “Below average,” “Average,” or “Above average.” Google does not publish the exact weighting formula. (Google Ads Help: About Quality Score)
| Component | What It Measures | How to Diagnose It | Column Name in Google Ads |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expected CTR | How likely your ad is to be clicked when shown for this keyword, relative to competing ads | Review headline relevance, specificity, and intent match; check asset performance report | Exp. CTR |
| Ad Relevance | How closely your ad copy matches the intent behind the keyword | Check whether keyword themes and intent appear naturally in headlines and descriptions | Ad Relevance |
| Landing Page Experience | How relevant, useful, and usable your landing page is for users who click the ad | Check message match, Core Web Vitals, mobile usability, content depth, and transparency | Landing Page Exp. |
Quality Score Is NOT These Metrics
One of the most common sources of confusion in Google Ads is conflating Quality Score with related but distinct metrics. Quality Score is a diagnostic for keyword–ad–landing page alignment — nothing more.
| Metric | Same as Quality Score? | Relationship |
|---|---|---|
| Ad Strength | No | Ad Strength evaluates RSA asset variety and quantity. Quality Score evaluates keyword-level relevance across the keyword, ad, and landing page. |
| Optimization Score | No | Optimization Score is an account-level recommendation readiness metric. Quality Score is a keyword-level diagnostic. |
| CTR | No | CTR is your actual click-through rate. Expected CTR is one component of Quality Score, but it is Google’s estimate of how your ad would perform relative to others — not your historical rate. |
| Conversion Rate | No | Quality Score does not measure conversion performance. A 10/10 keyword that converts poorly is not a good keyword. |
| CPC | No | CPC reflects auction outcomes. Quality Score is a diagnostic input — not the CPC itself. |
| Ad Rank | No | Ad Rank determines position and entry into auctions. Quality Score informs some ad-quality factors that feed into Ad Rank, but is not the same thing. |
| Landing Page Experience | Partial | Landing page experience is one component of Quality Score, but it is also assessed independently at auction time with more granular signals. |
| Auction-time quality | Related but different | The quality factor used in each actual auction is calculated in real time with contextual signals. The visible 1–10 Quality Score is a historical estimate, not the auction-time value. |
Quality Score vs. Auction-Time Quality
The Quality Score shown in your Google Ads interface is a historical estimate, updated periodically based on impression and click data. The quality factor used in each actual auction is calculated in real time using more granular, contextual signals — the specific query text (not just the keyword), the user’s device, location, time of day, audience signals, and more.
This means a keyword with a visible Quality Score of 6/10 might participate in specific auctions as though its quality were higher or lower, depending on those contextual signals. The visible score helps diagnose structural issues in your setup. It does not show you exactly what happens in any individual auction.
Treat visible Quality Score as a diagnostic for where to investigate. Treat auction-time performance data — CPC trends, impression share, conversion rate by keyword — as the actual measure of outcome.
How Quality Score Fits Into Ad Rank
Google determines Ad Rank using multiple auction-time signals, including bid, auction-time quality estimates, the expected impact of assets, search context, and competitiveness of the auction. The visible Quality Score helps diagnose some of those quality factors, but it is not itself the auction formula and is not directly inserted into an equation at auction time. (Google Ads Help: About Ad Rank)
What this means in practice:
- Improving underlying quality factors — relevance, landing page usefulness, expected engagement — can contribute to stronger auction-time quality estimates and more efficient participation.
- A CPC increase is not necessarily a Quality Score problem. Competing bids, auction context, device, and query variation all affect CPCs independently.
- Advertisers with lower bids who improve quality factors can sometimes compete more efficiently against advertisers with higher bids and weaker relevance.
Where to Start: Quality Score Diagnosis Framework
When a keyword has a low or declining Quality Score, the component ratings tell you where to look. Follow this sequence rather than guessing:
| Component Rating | Likely Cause | Fix First |
|---|---|---|
| Expected CTR: Below average | Headlines are too generic, do not match intent, or are not competitive vs. other advertisers | Rewrite RSA headlines — include the keyword or intent signal; add specific numbers, offers, or differentiators; check asset performance report for “Low” rated assets |
| Ad Relevance: Below average | Ad group is too broad; one generic ad is covering keywords with different intents | Tighten ad groups by intent; write ad copy that directly addresses the specific keyword’s implied question or need |
| Landing Page Experience: Below average | Message mismatch between ad and page; slow load time; poor mobile usability; thin or irrelevant content | Align page headline with ad promise; improve Core Web Vitals; ensure content depth matches intent of the query |
| All three: Below average | Keyword is either too broad, too mismatched, or targeting the wrong intent entirely | Check search terms to confirm the keyword is attracting the right queries; consider splitting into separate ad groups with dedicated ads and landing pages |
| Score is 6–7, all Average | Structural setup is adequate but not differentiated | Test stronger CTAs, more specific headlines, and message match improvements; low urgency unless CPAs are unacceptable |
Do not change what is working. If a keyword has “Average” across all three components and a profitable CPA, spend your optimization time elsewhere.
How to Improve Expected CTR
Expected CTR measures how likely your ad is to be clicked, relative to what Google expects given your keyword and ad position. A below-average rating usually means your headlines are too generic, too similar to competitors, or not specific enough to the keyword’s intent.
- Include the keyword or a close variant in at least one headline. This improves perceived relevance and gives the user visual confirmation that your ad matches their search.
- Use specific numbers, offers, or differentiators. “Free Shipping Over £50” outperforms “Great Deals Available” for expected CTR in most categories.
- Match the intent signal in your headline. A “best [product]” query expects a comparative or recommendation frame. A “buy [product]” query expects price, availability, or a clear CTA. A “how to [task]” query expects a guide or tool.
- Review your RSA asset performance report. Headlines rated “Low” are hurting expected CTR. Replace them with more specific, intent-matched alternatives and allow sufficient impression volume before evaluating. (Google Ads Help: RSA asset reporting)
How to Improve Ad Relevance
Ad relevance measures how closely your ad copy matches the intent behind the keyword. A below-average rating often indicates that your ad groups are too broad — one generic ad covering keywords with different intents.
- Tighten your ad groups. Group keywords by intent, not just by theme. “buy running shoes” and “best running shoes for beginners” have different intents and benefit from different ads, headlines, and potentially different landing pages.
- Write ad copy that directly addresses the keyword’s implied question or intent. If the keyword is “accounting software for small business,” your headlines should speak specifically to small businesses, not to software buyers generally.
- Use Dynamic Keyword Insertion (DKI) carefully. DKI automatically inserts the triggering keyword into your headline, which can improve relevance signals. But DKI works poorly for long keywords, keywords that produce grammatically awkward insertions, or compliance-sensitive queries where automatic insertions may produce misleading, policy-sensitive, or legally problematic headlines. Test DKI in ad groups where keyword themes are tightly controlled. (Google Ads Help: About Dynamic Keyword Insertion)
How to Improve Landing Page Experience
Google states that landing page experience considers usefulness, relevance, navigation, transparency, and overall user experience. The precise weighting of individual signals is not published. (Google Ads Help: Landing page experience)
- Message match: Your landing page headline should echo the key promise in your ad. If the ad says “Get a Free Quote Today,” the landing page should not open with “Welcome to Our Company.” This mismatch reduces both landing page experience ratings and conversion rate.
- Core Web Vitals and page speed: Focus on improving Core Web Vitals (LCP, INP, CLS) and real-user experience rather than targeting a specific load time. Use PageSpeed Insights or Lighthouse for diagnostics, and check field data in Search Console where available. (web.dev: Core Web Vitals)
- Single conversion goal: Landing pages with one clear primary action — fill in a form, buy now, call — tend to create a clearer user experience. Multiple competing CTAs and exit links can contribute to lower landing page experience ratings and lower conversion rates simultaneously.
- Mobile usability: Test mobile usability using Chrome DevTools, PageSpeed Insights, Lighthouse, and real-device testing. Unresponsive layouts, tiny tap targets, and full-screen pop-ups on mobile are common causes of low landing page experience ratings.
The full PPC landing page optimization guide covers the highest-impact changes for landing page conversion rates and Quality Score landing page experience improvements in detail.
Quality Score Optimization Priority Matrix
| Situation | Priority | Difficulty | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Below-average Expected CTR on high-spend keyword | Very High | Low | Rewrite headlines; add intent-specific offers; review asset performance |
| Below-average Ad Relevance across multiple keywords | High | Medium | Restructure ad groups by intent; write dedicated ads per intent cluster |
| Below-average Landing Page Experience on top keywords | High | Medium–High | Fix message match; improve Core Web Vitals; audit mobile UX |
| All components Average on a profitable keyword | Low | — | Leave it. Focus effort on underperforming keywords. |
| 10/10 keyword with poor CPA/ROAS | — | — | QS is not the problem. Investigate keyword intent, audience, or offer mismatch. |
| 3–5/10 keyword with very low impression volume | Low | — | Quality Score is unreliable at low volume. Gather more data before changing anything. |
When NOT to Care About Quality Score
Quality Score improvement is worth the effort when it helps diagnose actual inefficiencies. It is not worth obsessing over in the following situations:
- Your CPA is already at or below target. If the campaign is profitable and business outcomes are good, chasing a higher Quality Score on already-performing keywords is not a productive use of time.
- Low impression volume keywords. Quality Score is statistically unreliable on keywords with fewer than a few hundred impressions. Improving a 3/10 keyword that almost never triggers is not a priority.
- Brand campaigns. Brand keywords often have Quality Scores that look artificially lower than non-brand terms because you are the only advertiser targeting your own brand name with tight relevance. Auction dynamics are completely different. Do not compare brand and non-brand Quality Scores.
- Exact-match niche keywords with no competition. Quality Score is relative to other advertisers competing for the same queries. With no real competition, the diagnostic comparison is less meaningful.
- Short-term or seasonal campaigns. Quality Score accumulates over time based on historical performance data. A campaign running for two weeks has limited data. Invest optimisation effort in campaigns designed to run long enough for the data to be meaningful.
- Smart Bidding already converged. When Smart Bidding is actively managing bids with good conversion data and volume, minor Quality Score fluctuations are less impactful. The bidding algorithm responds to auction-time signals that the visible Quality Score does not fully capture.
Quality Score for Performance Max and Smart Bidding
Quality Score is a Search and Shopping campaign metric. Performance Max campaigns do not have visible Quality Scores — the diagnostic does not apply to PMax asset groups in the same way.
For PMax, the equivalent diagnostic work involves reviewing asset group performance, checking which asset combinations perform best in the asset report, and ensuring landing pages are relevant and fast. The same underlying quality factors — relevance, usability, landing page experience — still influence how Google’s automation serves and optimises those campaigns.
Smart Bidding does not directly use the 1–10 Quality Score in its per-auction bid calculations. It uses auction-time quality signals that are more granular than the visible score. Improving the underlying keyword–ad–landing page alignment still matters for Smart Bidding campaigns because those underlying factors influence the quality signals Smart Bidding does use. Understanding how Smart Bidding uses auction-time signals helps clarify why Quality Score improvement and Smart Bidding improvement are complementary, not competing activities.
How to Measure Quality Score Improvements
Quality Score is not the right primary metric to track after making changes. Track these instead:
| Metric | What to Watch |
|---|---|
| Quality Score (by component) | Trend in Exp. CTR, Ad Relevance, Landing Page Exp. ratings — directional improvement, not absolute score |
| Impression Share | Whether improved quality allows participation in more auctions |
| Average CPC | Whether improved quality correlates with more efficient click costs |
| CTR | Whether improved headlines produce more actual clicks |
| Conversion Rate | Whether landing page and relevance improvements translate to better on-site performance |
| CPA / Cost per qualified lead | Whether campaign efficiency is actually improving at the business level |
| ROAS | Whether improved quality produces better return on ad spend |
| Search Impression Share Lost (Quality) | Google’s signal that quality, not bid, is limiting impression share |
Allow a minimum of two to four weeks after making changes before drawing conclusions, especially for lower-volume keywords. Quality Score changes slowly because it is based on accumulated impression and click data.
Common Quality Score Mistakes
- Chasing 10/10 on all keywords: A 10/10 on a keyword that converts poorly is not useful. A 6/10 on a keyword driving your best CPA is fine. Optimise for business outcomes, not score aesthetics.
- Pausing low-Quality-Score keywords without investigating: A 3/10 keyword may be performing poorly because the ad is generic, the landing page is wrong, or the keyword itself is mismatched to intent. Each cause has a different fix. Pausing without diagnosing wastes the data and may remove a keyword that could be made profitable with relatively small changes.
- Assuming Quality Score drives all CPC differences: Competing bids, auction context, device, query match type, and audience signals all affect CPCs independently of Quality Score. A CPC increase is not always a Quality Score problem.
- Treating Quality Score as a campaign-level metric: Quality Score is keyword-level. An overall “good” or “bad” Quality Score for a campaign does not exist — the meaningful level of analysis is keyword by keyword, especially for high-spend and high-volume terms.
- Confusing Ad Strength with Quality Score: Ad Strength appears in the RSA editor and evaluates asset variety and combinations. Quality Score appears in the Keywords view. A high Ad Strength does not guarantee a high Quality Score and vice versa.
Quality Score Audit Checklist
Run this checklist when diagnosing underperforming Search campaigns:
- ☐ Add Qual. Score, Exp. CTR, Ad Relevance, and Landing Page Exp. columns to the Keywords view
- ☐ Filter to keywords with 1,000+ impressions in the last 30 days
- ☐ Sort by Quality Score ascending
- ☐ Cross-reference with spend and CPA — identify high-spend, low-QS keywords with poor business results
- ☐ For Expected CTR: Below average — review RSA asset performance report; rewrite “Low” headlines
- ☐ For Ad Relevance: Below average — check whether keyword intent is reflected in headlines; consider tightening ad groups
- ☐ For Landing Page Experience: Below average — check message match, Core Web Vitals, mobile usability
- ☐ Check Search Terms report to confirm keyword is attracting the right query types
- ☐ Note keywords with all-Average components and profitable CPAs — leave them alone
- ☐ Set a review reminder to check component trends 2–4 weeks after making changes
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Quality Score used directly in Google’s auction?
No. The 1–10 Quality Score displayed in your account is a diagnostic estimate, not the value inserted into the auction. Google calculates auction-time quality in real time using more granular signals than the visible score captures. Quality Score helps diagnose keyword–ad–landing page alignment, but the auction itself uses separate, real-time quality estimates. (Google Ads Help: About Quality Score)
Is a 10/10 Quality Score necessary?
No. A 10/10 is not a prerequisite for efficient campaign performance or a strong CPA. Quality Score is a diagnostic indicator, not a performance target. Focus improvement work on keywords where below-average component ratings are associated with poor business outcomes — not on keywords already performing well regardless of their score.
Why does a keyword with 10/10 Quality Score still perform poorly?
Because Quality Score measures keyword–ad–landing page alignment, not business suitability or audience intent. A keyword can have high relevance between the ad and the landing page while still attracting the wrong audience, having insufficient commercial intent, or competing in an auction where competitor offers are stronger. Quality Score diagnoses the structural relationship — it does not evaluate whether the keyword is commercially valuable.
Does Performance Max have Quality Score?
No. Performance Max campaigns do not have visible Quality Scores. Quality Score is a Search and Shopping campaign metric assigned at the keyword level. PMax uses asset groups rather than keywords, and its equivalent quality diagnostics are found in the asset performance report rather than a Quality Score column.
Does Smart Bidding ignore Quality Score?
Smart Bidding does not directly use the 1–10 visible Quality Score in its per-auction bid calculations. It uses real-time, auction-level quality signals that are more granular than the displayed score. However, improving the underlying factors that Quality Score reflects — relevance, landing page usefulness, user experience — can still improve the auction-time signals that Smart Bidding uses. The two are related, not independent.
Sources
- Google Ads Help: About Quality Score
- Google Ads Help: About Quality Score for Search campaigns (diagnostic role)
- Google Ads Help: Check and understand Quality Score
- Google Ads Help: About Ad Rank
- Google Ads Help: Landing page experience
- Google Ads Help: About Dynamic Keyword Insertion
- Google Ads Help: RSA asset performance report
- web.dev: Core Web Vitals (LCP, INP, CLS)
TL;DR Improving the factors behind Quality Score — expected CTR, ad relevance, and landing page experience — often improves campaign efficiency. Quality Score itself is‚Ķ
