At a glance
Session Source vs Ecom Revenue Attribution maps the traffic sources Microsoft Clarity observes against the revenue your ecommerce platform attributes to each one. When a source brings plenty of sessions but little or no attributed revenue, you can see where spend or effort is not paying back, or where attribution is failing. For merchants, it is a clear read on which channels actually drive sales versus which only drive visits.
| What it counts | A per-source table mapping Clarity-observed traffic sources to the ecommerce platform’s attributed revenue. |
| Sample type | Behavioural session data from Microsoft Clarity (heatmaps and session recordings), refreshed on the standard data refresh. |
| Why it matters | Sources with high sessions but low attributed revenue reveal wasted spend or broken attribution worth investigating. |
| Reading the value | Rows where session share and revenue share diverge sharply are the sources to question first. |
| Currency | your store currency |
| Time window | 30D |
| Alert trigger | >25% revenue unattributed |
| Sentiment key | clr_xc_traffic_source_vs_revenue |
| Roles | owner, marketing |
Calculation
Vortex IQ joins the traffic source breakdown Microsoft Clarity exposes from session behaviour with the revenue your ecommerce platform attributes to each source, then lays both out in a per-source table over the selected window. The source side reflects what Clarity observes; the revenue side comes from your store platform, not Clarity. See At a glance for the headline definition and the worked example below for a representative reading.Worked example
A representative reading of Session Source vs Ecom Revenue Attribution for a typical merchant on Microsoft Clarity. Over the 30 days to 12 Mar 26, the table might show a social channel sending 22% of sessions but only 4% of attributed revenue, while more than 25% of revenue sits unattributed and trips the alert. That pattern hints at either a low-intent source or lost attribution on the converting paths. Use Vortex Mind to trace where the unattributed revenue is coming from, then ask Ask Viq in plain English to compare each source’s session share against its revenue share so you can rebalance spend.Sibling cards merchants should reference together
| Card | Why merchants reach for it |
|---|---|
clr_top_traffic_sources | Gives the Clarity-side source ranking this card pairs with revenue. |
clr_xc_funnel_vs_ecom_conversion | Shows whether low-revenue sources also under-convert or just under-attribute. |
clr_xc_landing_page_perf_vs_bounce | Checks whether weak landing pages are throttling revenue from specific sources. |
clr_sessions_by_country | Adds geographic context to where source sessions and revenue diverge. |
clr_session_conversion_rate | Confirms whether a high-session, low-revenue source is a conversion problem. |
Reconciling against Microsoft Clarity
Where to look in Microsoft Clarity’s own dashboard: Review the Dashboard insights for traffic sources to confirm the session side, but note the attributed revenue figure comes from your store platform’s reporting, not Clarity. Confirm the period and any device, channel, or bot filters match the Vortex IQ profile before comparing. Why the Vortex IQ value may legitimately differ:| Reason | Direction | What to do |
|---|---|---|
| Period boundary. Vortex IQ uses rolling windows by default; Clarity may use calendar periods. | Variable | Match the period range. |
| Sampling. Clarity may sample sessions on high-traffic sites; Vortex IQ reads what Clarity exposes. | Variable | Allow for sampling on busy stores. |
| Filter scope. Profile-level filters (device, channel, bot exclusion) may narrow the Vortex IQ view. | Variable | Match filter settings. |