AI Content vs Human Content: What Actually Wins in 2025?

Well, at least without a conscious editing round afterwards.

If you’re a SaaS marketer or a startup founder, you already can recognize an unedited AI-written content from a distance. Unnatural, full of hyperboles, and - of course - sprinkled with rocket emojis.

But this post isn’t about roasting AI content. Which would be tempting, given that I myself made a living writing content for many years.

But no - emotions aside. Each brand needs to create content at scale. And this always triggers a discussion around HOW. Stick to the human writing or to leverage AI to remove the capacity bottlenecks?

And if you say yes to AI content, what will your performance look like?

Here, we’ll dive into comparing AI content vs human content in the perspective of SEO results and conversions.

SEO Rankings & Organic Traffic

Let’s start with the SEO aspect., and for now - we will not go into the rabbit hole titled “Is SEO dead in 2025”.

Instead, let’s have a look at some of the actual questions SaaS marketers and founders ask online about AI content in terms of organic search:

“Is it possible to rank with AI content? I have recently seen a huge promotion of artificial intelligence for creating articles... I was wondering, does it even work or are they just making these videos for the sake of views?”​

“Anyone having good results with AI content? I'd like to try AI but I'm not sure if it's worth the gamble.”

And many more like those. It’s tempting, I admit. You can create more, in much shorter time.

But let’s take a look at some studies:

The Human Advantage: Marketing Insider Group's Findings

Marketing Insider Group put this to the test in 2023, pitting human writers against AI and even a hybrid approach (AI draft + human edited). 

Spoiler alert: the humans won. 

Their content outperformed both AI-only and hybrid articles in keyword rankings and organic traffic. Human writers were better at finding fresh high-ranking keywords and holding onto their search positions over time.

But - please bear in mind that when they ran this test, it was December 2023, and the AI tool they were examining was ChatGPT-3.5. Now, in April 2025, in the OpenAI ecosystem alone, we’re seeing super-robust capabilities of ChatGPT 4o and 4.5 models. Not to mention amazing stuff you can do with Claude and plenty of other AI tools.

The Plot Twist: Semrush's Contrasting Results

Semrush came along with their own "AI vs Human" study in 2024 and found something interesting: AI content can actually rank nearly as well as human content when the quality is comparable. 

They found 57% of AI articles and 58% of human articles appeared in Google's top 10 results.

Source

A whole 39% of marketers reported increased website visitors after adding AI content to their mix. 

And get this - 33% said their AI content actually outperformed human content in traffic.

But here's the catch: 73% of those marketers weren't just clicking "generate" and publishing. They used a hybrid approach, with human editors polishing those AI drafts. 

Pure AI output without human oversight? Careful.

What really resonates with me in this article is this bit:

“Just as human-written content doesn’t automatically guarantee quality, AI-generated copy isn’t low-quality by default.”

Let that sink in.

When AI Goes Wrong: Mass Content Disasters

OK, I’ve cited Semrush, so time to look at what their biggest opponent - Ahrefs - brought up in this matter.

And what Ryan Law, their Director of Content Marketing, is touching upon, is one viral case involving using AI to generate 1,800 articles, basically copying a competitor's topics. This "SEO heist" initially pulled in 489,000 visits in a single month! 

But Google caught on quickly. Manual penalty time. Their traffic nosedived from about 3.6M quarterly visits to nearly zero the following month.

Ouch.

But I have to agree with Ryan. It doesn't look like Google took revenge on this website, because it was AI content. It was more about low-quality, mediocre content that this brand released on a crazy mass-scale.

Another case is about Reboot Online. They took a more scientific approach with 25 paired websites - AI-written vs human-written content competing head-to-head in Google. The verdict was clear: AI-generated content ranked lower on average in 21 of 25 tests.

Source

Google seems to be picking up on subtle quality signals in human content that AI just can't replicate (yet). Well, at least at that moment and with this set of content.

Success Stories: When AI Content Works

Take Bankrate.com - they've successfully published over 160 AI-assisted articles in about six months, generating roughly 125,000 organic visits monthly from those pages. Many even rank on Google's first page!

Their secret? Quality control. 

Subject matter experts fact-checked and refined each AI draft before publishing. This combination of domain authority and human oversight allowed their AI content to perform "just as well as human-generated content" in rankings and traffic.

The Bottom Line for SEO

While the results of the first study, performed by Marketing Insider Group, have put human content in the pilot seat, sticking to it would be too romantic.

In fact, the insights coming from the Semrush study are hitting home. It doesn’t really matter, whether it’s AI or human behind the content, as long as the quality is there.

AI content can rank and attract significant traffic if done thoughtfully – especially when humans guide the process. Google doesn't have an anti-AI bias; they're just after quality and relevance.

The determining factor is content quality, not who (or what) wrote it. High-quality AI-assisted content on a strong site can thrive, while mass-produced, low-value text will get filtered out by Google's Helpful Content system and spam detectors.

Recent Google updates have specifically targeted "mass-produced, unedited AI content," causing sites full of 100% AI text with little human oversight to suffer major visibility losses.

The rule remains quality-over-quantity.

User Engagement Metrics

Sure, getting eyeballs on your content is great, but what happens after they land? Do they stick around to actually read what you've written or bounce faster than a rubber ball?

Let's dive into the metrics that reveal what happens after someone clicks on your link.

The Bounce Rate Battle

Have you ever wondered if people can tell when they're reading AI content and just... leave? There's some interesting data here.

STACK Media, a fitness content site, tried something clever. Instead of replacing their writers with AI, they used AI tools (BrightEdge) to optimize their content structure and add more depth to existing pages.

The results? Pretty impressive: 61% more website visits and a whopping 73% reduction in bounce rate.

What they did wasn't magic - they simply used AI to better match what users were actually searching for. By adding more comprehensive information and resources, readers found what they needed and stuck around instead of hitting the back button.

A real estate blog saw similar results after adopting an AI SEO plugin - higher engagement and lower bounce rates once their content was expanded and better aligned with user intent.

But here's where it gets tricky…

Pure AI-generated text that lacks insight or reads like it was written by a robot tends to fail at keeping readers interested. 

Terakeet's content quality test found that AI drafts were often formulaic, full of broad generalizations, and sometimes just a dry "wall of text." Not exactly page-turners.

I love how Ahrefs' content strategist put it: "AI content is good for generating traffic but bad at building trust... it's like reading a Wikipedia page – even if you solve the reader's problem, they won't remember you."

Ouch, but fair.

When content doesn't connect with people or feels unoriginal, visitors are more likely to exit quickly. 

That's why many savvy marketers now pair AI with human editing - specifically to add that personal, narrative tone that keeps bounce rates lower.

Time on Page: The Attention Test

Let's face it, attention is the currency of the internet. And time spent on page is a pretty good indicator of whether your content is actually holding that attention.

Human-written articles often excel here because they can leverage storytelling, relatable examples, and nuanced explanations that keep readers engaged. AI-generated content, if left unpolished, sometimes presents information in a way that feels disjointed or overly clinical.

The result? Users skim quickly and leave once they get their quick answer.

But here's where the hybrid approach shows its strength again. Content teams have reported increases in average time on page after incorporating AI-generated sections that were then polished by human editors.

In these success cases, they didn't just see better time-on-page metrics - they also noticed lower bounce rates and even more newsletter sign-ups in the same timeframe.

The winning formula seems to be emerging: AI supplies additional relevant content (quantity), and human curators ensure that content is written in a compelling way (quality). 

Together, they're keeping readers on the page longer.

Click-Through Rate (CTR) in Search Results

The battle between AI and human content doesn't just play out on your website - it starts right in the search results. Let's look at how both approaches impact your click-through rates.

Can AI Write Better Headlines?

Here's something that might make content writers a bit uncomfortable: AI might be better at writing headlines that get clicks.

A Danish news outlet, TV 2 Fyn, put this to the test. They pitted OpenAI's GPT-generated headlines against their journalists' original ones in a three-week trial. 

The result?

AI-crafted headlines drove a 59% higher click-through rate.

That's not a small difference - it's a massive improvement that would make any marketing director sit up and take notice.

Why did AI win? 

It's likely because AI can quickly analyze what phrases trigger curiosity or contain popular keywords. The editors still supervised the process, choosing among AI suggestions, but this shows where AI might actually outshine human creativity.

The Complete SERP Package

Beyond headlines, meta descriptions also heavily influence CTR. Many SEO platforms now use AI tools to generate these snippets with clear calls to action and strategic keyword placement.

But there's a catch - a human touch remains crucial to ensure the snippet actually represents what's on the page. An AI might generate click-bait that boosts CTR but misrepresents the content, leading to disappointed visitors who immediately bounce.

The smart approach? Use AI to draft options for titles and descriptions, then have a human select and refine the best one.

Worth noting: Google doesn't label whether content was AI or human-written in search results. Users decide to click based on the title, description, and site reputation - not who (or what) created the content.

Many content teams are now using AI not to write entire articles, but specifically to optimize the "front-facing" text that appears on Google to maximize clicks - an approach that seems to be paying off.

The bottom line? Well-crafted titles and snippets drive CTR, regardless of who created them. AI can offer data-informed suggestions that significantly boost clicks, but human oversight ensures those clicks lead to content that actually satisfies the visitor.

Conversion Rates and Lead Generation

Traffic and engagement are great, but let's be real - the ultimate goal is conversions. Whether that's sign-ups, demo requests, or purchases, getting readers to take action is what truly matters for your bottom line.

The Trust Factor

Here's where things get interesting: readers tend to find human content more trustworthy.

Marketing Insider Group's report (from 2023 - which is an important detail) emphasized that human content wins in quality and trust, while AI-only content often lacks the nuance needed to build a relationship with your readers.

Ryan Law of Ahrefs put it bluntly: "People don't buy from junk content."

That's a tough assessment, but he's got a point. Even if AI content brings in mountains of traffic, those visitors might not convert if the content feels impersonal or generic.

Human writers can inject personal experience, anecdotes, and a tone that resonates with your target audience – elements that help persuade readers to take that next step.

What The Numbers Say

Hard metrics comparing conversion rates between AI and human content are still emerging (many companies are just beginning to experiment with AI content), but some case studies give us clues.

Rocky Brands, a footwear company, reported a 30% increase in search revenue, 74% YoY revenue growth, and 13% more new users after using AI tools to improve their SEO content strategy.

The key detail? 

They used AI for keyword research and content optimization, not to replace their writers. The improved conversion likely came from better targeting and content that answered customer questions more effectively.

Another experiment showed that adding AI-generated informational content to a personal blog led to more newsletter sign-ups and longer page visits. This suggests that when AI helps address more user questions in one place, visitors may feel more satisfied and willing to trust the site.

But there's a flip side: poorly executed AI content can hurt conversions. If a finance blog post contains even a small factual error or tone-deaf phrasing, readers might lose confidence and bounce before filling out your lead form.

The Bottom Line For Conversions

When it comes to direct conversion copy (landing pages, product pages), human copywriters still have the edge. These pages demand emotional storytelling and persuasion tactics that AI might struggle with.

A LinkedIn performance study comparing AI versus human sales copy found that human-written copy had a slightly better conversion rate (2.5% for human vs 2.1% for AI).

That said, many companies are finding success with a hybrid approach: using AI to generate helpful content efficiently, while having human experts review and add perspective.

When done right, this can produce content that both ranks well and converts – like Bankrate's AI-assisted articles that not only appear high in search results but also successfully funnel readers into credit card signups.

The consensus among marketers? Use AI to support content creation, not to replace human insight – especially for content aimed at conversion.

How Google Treats AI Content

Let's address the elephant in the room: how does Google view AI content? This has been a hot topic with plenty of speculation, so let's look at what we actually know.

Google's Official Stance

Google has made it clear: they don't outright penalize content just because AI generated it.

In early 2023, Google updated its Search guidance to state that AI content is acceptable as long as it's helpful and people-first. 

Their algorithms focus on quality, relevance, and E-E-A-T signals (Experience, Expertise, Authority, Trustworthiness), regardless of who - or what - wrote it.

This means a well-written AI article that's accurate and satisfies user intent can rank just as well as a similar-quality human article. 

The Semrush study backed this up, showing nearly equal top-10 appearance rates for both when quality was controlled.

The Reality Check

While Google doesn't discriminate against AI content in principle, they're actively fighting "spammy, low-quality content" - which happens to describe a lot of mass-produced AI text.

The Helpful Content System (introduced in late 2022 and expanded in 2023) specifically targets content that seems written primarily for search engines rather than people.

Sites that mass-produced hundreds of AI-generated posts with minimal editing saw significant declines after these updates. 

In March 2024, a core update combined with spam detection hit sites with "mass-autogenerated content with little human oversight" particularly hard.

Some niche sites using 100% AI-written articles without edits were completely deindexed or saw massive ranking drops. Google's tolerance for AI clearly has limits.

What This Means For You

Google isn't using "AI detectors" to ban AI text outright, but their algorithms can recognize patterns typical of AI writing - like lack of originality or generic tone - and may factor that into rankings.

The issue isn't that Google "knows" a machine wrote something, but rather that purely machine-written text often triggers quality filters. AI content frequently "relies on content that already exists" and struggles to provide fresh insights - something Google's algorithms interpret as lacking originality or authority.

As we move into 2025, Google continues to emphasize E-E-A-T and transparency. Some AI-using sites now disclose AI authorship (Bankrate tags certain posts as "AI assisted"), following Google's guidance.

The bottom line? 

Google's ranking of AI vs human content comes down to one question: Is it the best answer for the user? If an AI-written page is the most helpful, it can rank #1. If a human-written page is more thorough or trustworthy, it will outrank an AI competitor.

The mere presence of AI isn't a ranking factor - quality is.

Source

Final Words

My personal take as a person who's been in content marketing for years:

At first - as a writer myself - I was a big opponent of AI-written content. It was flat, soulless and generic.

But after a while I zoomed out and realized this - there is bad AI writing, and there's bad human writing; there is good AI writing, and there's good human writing.

The best approach for you, as a SaaS marketer or founder, is the hybrid version - a combination of AI content with human oversight.

This way you can: 

✅ Scale up the content production volume 

✅ Keep it relevant and valuable

The worst thing to do: 

❌ Let AI do the whole thing by itself. Why? Because at some point, AI tools take shortcuts, hallucinate (ugh - I myself have caught LLMs making stuff up countless times), and simply fabricate information.

That's about it! If you need some help with setting up a content machine that will combine AI with human intelligence, drop us a line. 

We'll be more than happy to help!