I wanted to share an early result from a live multi-location healthcare client because I think the comparison is interesting.

We built a dedicated local-search property to better organize location-specific search intent and support a growing multi-location footprint.

This is a real client, so I’m keeping the brand and locations anonymous.

Here’s the first 7-day Google Search Console comparison:

**New local-search property**

* 73 clicks
* 2.42K impressions
* 3.0% CTR
* 5.8 average position

**Existing location-page comparison set**

* 66 clicks
* 6.04K impressions
* 1.1% CTR
* 18.5 average position

The part that stood out to me:

**The new local property generated slightly more clicks from roughly 60% fewer impressions.**

It also had about **2.7x the CTR** and was averaging **5.8 vs. 18.5** in position.

A few caveats:

* This is only a 7-day window.
* The query mix is not identical between the two properties.
* I would not interpret this as evidence that “subdomains rank better.”
* I also wouldn’t claim the architecture itself caused the difference yet.

What I think the data does support is that the new local environment is earning meaningful first-page visibility and is performing well enough that we should keep validating the model rather than changing the architecture based on theory.

The bigger lesson for me is that the win isn’t really “subdomain vs. subfolder.”

It’s whether the local architecture gives Google and users a clearer match between:

**location + search intent + content + site structure**

Next step is extending the comparison window and tying the search data back to calls, submissions, and qualified leads.

Curious how others would interpret this.

Would you consider this strong early validation, or would you want to see a longer window before drawing much from it?

Interesting local SEO result: 2.4K impressions generated more clicks than 6K