Author: Elliott Davidson
Published: November 29, 2023
Original Research by: Contrast Digital
Commissioned by: .store Domains
Over a 12-month period, Contrast Digital conducted a controlled experiment commissioned by .store Domains to compare the performance differences between .store and .com domain extensions for eCommerce websites. Two identical eCommerce websites were launched with the same products, page layouts, content, and marketing campaigns—the only difference being their top-level domain (TLD): brandname.com versus brandname.store.
Key Findings:
This experiment was designed to replicate real-world conditions that any business owner or creator would face when launching an eCommerce store. The following controls were implemented:
Identical Elements Across Both Websites:
Controlled Variables:
Minor Differences (To Prevent User Confusion):
These visual differences were implemented to reduce the chance of users confusing the experimental websites or assuming they were duplicate/scam sites. While these differences may have impacted results, measures were taken to minimize these variables.
The experiment evaluated three primary performance areas:
Both websites started with 34 pages consisting of product pages, category pages, and information pages (e.g., About page). Daily tracking was conducted per URL per website.
The indexing test was split into two phases:
Phase 1 (Days 1-15): Only website sitemaps were submitted to Google Search Console (GSC) to measure natural coverage within 15 days.
Phase 2 (After Day 15): Unindexed pages were manually requested for indexing through GSC's URL Inspect Tool.
| Metric | Brandname.com | Brandname.store | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pages indexed by Day 6 | 32/34 (94%) | 19/34 (56%) | .com |
| Full indexing achieved | Day 15 | Day 20 | .com |
| Indexing speed advantage | 30% faster | - | .com |
| Impressions (first 30 days) | 139 | 154 | .store |
Brandname.com was 30% faster in achieving full crawling and indexing of all 34 pages, suggesting Google prioritizes crawling and indexing .com domains initially. However, despite slower indexing, brandname.store acquired more impressions (154 vs 139) during the first 30-day period—a more important metric from an SEO perspective.
Winner: .store (based on impressions, the leading metric for SEO value)
After launching the stores, a 3-month waiting period was observed before introducing paid search testing. The paid search experiment ran for 5 months with identical configurations:
Research Question: Would consumers show different levels of trust when purchasing from a .com domain versus a .store domain?
| Metric | Brandname.com | Brandname.store | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Impressions | 20,488 | 21,547 | +5.17% |
| Clicks | 1,819 | 2,229 | +22.54% |
| Purchases | 24 | 33 | +37.50% |
| Cost | £1,078.73 | £1,306.54 | +21.11% |
| Click-through rate (CTR) | 8.88% | 10.34% | +16.44% |
| Avg. CPC | £0.59 | £0.59 | 0% |
| Conversion rate | 1.32% | 1.48% | +12.12% |
| Cost per Conversion | £44.95 | £39.59 | -11.93% |
Important Note on Budget Variance: Although paid search campaigns were identical, PPC spend varied between the two accounts. Brandname.store spent through its daily budget more efficiently, resulting in higher total campaign spend but a cheaper average CAC. This created some uncertainty about whether results were affected by spend levels, though controlling variables equally was prioritized.
Key Findings:
Conversion Rate Advantage: Brandname.store achieved a 12.12% increase in conversion rate (1.48% vs 1.32%). While this 0.16% difference may appear small, when scaled to eCommerce stores generating $100,000s or $1,000,000s in revenue, this difference could translate to $10,000s in additional value.
Lower Customer Acquisition Cost: Brandname.store had a cheaper CAC at £39.59 versus £44.95 for brandname.com—an 11.93% improvement.
Better Click-Through Rate: Brandname.store achieved 10.34% CTR compared to 8.88% for brandname.com.
Winner: .store (outperformed on all major eCommerce KPIs: conversion rate, CAC, and CTR)
After the initial indexing phase, both websites were left alone for 3 months to observe natural SEO development. Subsequently, content marketing activities began:
Content Strategy:
Link Building:
Milestone Timeline:
Total 12-Month Results:
Milestone Timeline:
Total 12-Month Results:
| Metric | Brandname.com | Brandname.store | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Impressions (GSC) | 24,822 | 49,939 | +101.2% |
| Clicks (GSC) | 333 | 623 | +87.1% |
| Average CTR (GSC) | 1.3% | 1.2% | -0.1% |
| Average Position (GSC) | 33 | 31.6 | -1.4 positions |
| All Page Views ex direct (GA4) | 5,546 | 6,728 | +21.3% |
| Organic Page Views (GA4) | 461 | 759 | +64.6% |
| Site | Non-Blog Keywords | Blog Keywords | Total Keywords |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brandname.com | 318 | 467 | 712 |
| Brandname.store | 383 | 780 | 1,061 |
| Difference | +20.4% | +67.0% | +49.0% |
Faster Milestone Achievement:
Larger Keyword Footprint: Brandname.store had a 49.01% larger keyword footprint (1,061 vs 712 keywords)
Superior Traffic Metrics: Brandname.store consistently generated higher clicks, impressions, and page views
Better Search Visibility: Brandname.store achieved a better average position (31.6 vs 33)
Conclusion: The data suggests Google preferred the brandname.store domain over the brandname.com domain for organic search performance.
Winner: .store (statistically significant outperformance across all major organic SEO metrics)
Statistical significance testing was conducted using code generated in MATLAB software. This testing uses measures such as mean and standard deviation to identify small differences across large datasets.
Understanding Statistical Significance:
Note on E-notation: E-06 = 0.000006 (6 zeros after decimal point)
Mean Values Per Day:
| Metric | Brandname.com | Brandname.store |
|---|---|---|
| Clicks per day | 12.2081 | 14.9597 |
| Impressions per day | 137.5034 | 144.6107 |
| CTR per day | 9.30% | 10.73% |
| Avg. CPC | 0.5942 | 0.5874 |
| Cost per day | 7.2398 | 8.7687 |
| Conversions per day | 0.1611 | 0.2215 |
Statistical Significance (p-values):
| Metric | p-value | Significant? |
|---|---|---|
| Clicks | 1.53E-07 | ✓ YES (p < 0.05) |
| Impressions | 0.1067 | ✗ NO (p > 0.05) |
| CTR | 3.93E-04 | ✓ YES (p < 0.05) |
| Avg. CPC | 2.11E-04 | ✓ YES (p < 0.05) |
| Cost | 3.90E-07 | ✓ YES (p < 0.05) |
| Conversions per day | 0.142 | ✗ NO (p > 0.05) |
Mean Values Per Day:
| Metric | Brandname.com | Brandname.store |
|---|---|---|
| Clicks per day | 0.9098 | 1.7022 |
| Impressions per day | 67.8197 | 136.4454 |
| Average CTR per day | 0.56% | 0.71% |
Statistical Significance (p-values):
| Metric | p-value | Significant? |
|---|---|---|
| Clicks | 1.96E-09 | ✓ YES (p < 0.05) |
| Impressions | 0.0067 | ✓ YES (p < 0.05) |
| CTR | 1.74E-05 | ✓ YES (p < 0.05) |
Limitations: Statistical significance testing requires moderate amounts of daily data to find significant differences in trends. The following metrics could NOT be tested for statistical significance:
Paid Search Findings: Brandname.store showed statistically significant outperformance in:
Organic SEO Findings: Brandname.store showed statistically significant outperformance in:
The 12-month organic SEO data was large enough to conclusively demonstrate that brandname.store consistently and statistically significantly outperforms brandname.com in organic search.
Winner: .store (statistically significant outperformance in measurable KPIs for both paid and organic search)
Considering the widespread perception that .com is the more recognized and trusted domain extension, the results were surprising. The expectation was that results would be equal or weighted toward the .com domain. Instead, the .store website statistically outperformed the .com website in nearly all key performance indicators.
Performance Summary by Category:
Indexing: Brandname.com outperformed initially (30% faster full indexing), but brandname.store gained more impressions in the first 30 days
Paid Search: Brandname.store outperformed on all major KPIs:
Organic SEO: Brandname.store significantly outperformed:
According to Google's own guidelines documentation: "Overall, our systems treat new gTLDs like other gTLDs (like .com and .org)."
This experiment confirms this statement is accurate. New gTLDs (like .store) are not negatively weighted or penalized in ways that would affect website performance. In this experiment, the .store domain showed only positive performance differences.
1. Consider .store for eCommerce Websites These results provide evidence to consider a .store domain extension when launching an online store, as it may provide SEO and conversion advantages.
2. Secure .store Domains for Brand Protection From an intellectual property perspective, brand owners should consider purchasing .store domains even if they primarily use .com. This prevents competitors from registering the .store version and launching competing stores.
3. Use .store for Separate Store Identity If a business wants to launch a store separate from their main website, a .store domain could provide a solid platform with its own unique identity while remaining closely connected to the main .com website.
This article was originally published on Contrast Digital's website. The 12-month experiment was conducted by Contrast Digital and commissioned by .store Domains.
The only major difference was the top-level domain (TLD) extension: one used .com (brandname.com) and the other used .store (brandname.store). All other elements were kept identical, including the second-level domain name, products, page layouts, content, and marketing campaigns.
The complete experiment ran for 12 months, with different phases:
These were actual functioning online stores where real customers could make purchases. This was intentional to make the experiment as realistic as possible, unlike most experiments that use non-functional fronts to collect data.
Both stores were built using Shopify, chosen to replicate what a typical business owner would use for their eCommerce website.
Each website started with 34 pages, consisting of product pages, category pages, and information pages (such as About pages). An additional 34 blog posts were published to each site over the course of the experiment.
Brandname.com spent £1,078.73 over the 5-month paid search period, while brandname.store spent £1,306.54. The difference occurred because brandname.store spent through its daily budget more efficiently.
The .store domain statistically outperformed the .com domain in nearly all key performance indicators except initial indexing speed. Specifically:
According to Google's official guidelines and confirmed by this experiment, Google treats new gTLDs (like .store) the same as traditional gTLDs (like .com and .org). The new gTLDs are not negatively weighted or penalized.
Statistical significance testing was conducted using MATLAB software, analyzing mean values and standard deviations across daily data. P-values were calculated to determine whether differences were statistically significant (p < 0.05) or could be attributed to chance (p > 0.05).
While blog topics were identical across both sites, all content was reworded so search engines and users would interpret the websites as unique. Additionally, slightly different colors, images, and fonts were used to prevent users from confusing the sites or assuming they were duplicates.