Better here than elsewhere. CTA copy tests win 21% of the time on lead capture pages, against 12% across all page types — 9 points better. If you are going to test CTA copy anywhere, this is the page for it.
It is also the strongest change type we can measure on lead capture pages — nothing else we track wins more often there.
Small sample. Few of these tests cleared the bar. The 95% interval on that win rate runs 11% to 36%, so read the figure as directional.
| lead capture pages | all page types | |
|---|---|---|
| Tests analysed | 38 tests | 250+ |
| Beat control | 21% | 12% |
| No measurable difference | 50% | — |
| Lost to control | 29% | — |
| Median lift when it won | not reported | — |
Median traffic per variant was 1385 visitors.
| change type | win rate on lead capture pages | tests |
|---|---|---|
| CTA copy (this page) | 21% | 38 tests |
| Styling | 10% | 50+ |
| Split URL | 10% | 100+ |
| Headline | 7% | 50+ |
Only change types with at least 30 tests on lead capture pages appear here.
A win rate only means as much as the thing being counted, so this is what these tests were actually optimising for.
| measured outcome | share of tests |
|---|---|
| Purchase / order complete | 25% |
| Lead / form submission | 23% |
| Signup / registration | 21% |
| Booking / appointment | 11% |
Outcomes below 5% of the set are not listed, so these do not sum to 100. How the outcome was measured moves the win rate a lot — see the methodology.
These rates are not like-for-like. How often a test wins depends partly on what it chose to measure: a goal that records a soft signal — a click, a scroll — clears the bar more often than one that records a purchase. Across this data, tests measured against a proxy goal win 13%, against 9% for tests measured against a business outcome.
Categories differ a lot in that mix — proxy goals account for anywhere from 2% to 41% of a category's tests.
Hold the metric fixed and the spread narrows sharply. Comparing only tests measured against a business outcome, the gap between the highest and lowest category falls from 9 points to 6 — at which point the intervals overlap and the categories are not statistically distinguishable.
So read the table as a description of what happened, not as a ranking of what works. If you want the comparison to mean something, compare categories that were measured the same way. The methodology page has the full breakdown.
The button's words change. Size, colour and position stay as they were. Change the colour too and you have two variables.
A new refuse-all button was added next to the select-all button so it set all opt-in radio inputs to no.
The CTA button text changed from two action-oriented options to a single qualification check prompt.
The single quiz button was replaced with a quiz question and two choice buttons.
The CTA text changed from an invitation to simulate borrowing capacity to a correctly spelled version of the same message.
It hid the headline and pricing headers, rewrote the intro text, changed the signup button to a risk-free full-access CTA, and added a money-back guarantee line below it.
It added upsell CTA buttons offering a service upgrade at monthly or one-time pricing, along with a decline option and bundle-discount headline and body text.
The single CTA button was replaced with a question prompt and two choice-based CTA buttons.
These are individual tests, not rules. Each ran on one site, with one audience, against one page we are not showing you. They are picked to be illustrative rather than sampled at random, and a change that won here can lose on your page for reasons none of this captures. Read them as prompts for what to test, not as findings to copy.
This is every Mida account that ran a readable test — in-house marketers, founders, product teams, and agencies working on client sites. Nothing here is filtered by who ran the experiment or how experienced they are.
Low win rates are normal in experimentation, including at the top end. Microsoft's experimentation team, reporting on its own platform, found that only about one third of ideas improve the metric they were designed to improve — and that roughly another third actively hurt it. That is a dedicated experimentation organisation with research, prioritisation and review behind every test.
A mixed population like this one runs below that. The gap is roughly what disciplined practice buys you: ideas grounded in research rather than opinion, one variable at a time, and tests built so the result can actually be read.
So treat these as a general base rate, not a target. If you would rather not close that gap the slow way, find a CRO agency in the United States, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands or Australia — or browse every region.
A win is a variant that beat its control on that test's primary goal with a statistically significant result. Tests that never got enough traffic to say anything either way are excluded. The methodology has the full detail, including what these numbers cannot tell you.
Mida.so is a super lightweight A/B testing tool to help you experiment, analyze and implement conversion strategies in minutes.
Still deciding?
A quick screen share on your actual site — no slides, no generic tour. Just your questions answered.
30 min · no commitment · no sales pressure