Do hero image A/B tests work on homepages?

About the same as anywhere else. Hero image tests win 18% of the time on homepages, against 17% across all page types. This page neither helps nor hurts the change type.

It is not the best use of a test slot on this page though. Layout tests win 27% on homepages on 100+ tests.

The numbers

	homepages	all page types
Tests analysed	50+	100+
Beat control	18%	17%
No measurable difference	71%	—
Lost to control	12%	—
Median lift when it won	+19.4%	—

Median traffic per variant was 2026 visitors.

What else is worth testing on homepages

change type	win rate on homepages	tests
Layout	27%	100+
Hero image (this page)	18%	50+
Price framing	16%	49 tests
Social proof	15%	50+
Styling	15%	500+
Body copy	14%	100+
Split URL	14%	100+
CTA copy	11%	100+
Headline	10%	250+

Only change types with at least 30 tests on homepages appear here.

What counts as a hero image test

The main visual is swapped, cropped or replaced. Surrounding copy stays as it was.

Control and variant wireframe for a hero image A/B test — Control on the left, variant on the right. For how this differs from adjacent categories, see the hero image benchmark.

Hero image tests that won on homepages

replaces the first carousel banner image with a different image (device-specific) and adds click tracking to it
Replaces the image inside the specified image block with a different photo
swaps the product video source and poster image (CZ to SK variant) without changing surrounding content
Inserts a new autoplaying background video hero section with headline, text, and CTA button above the homepage content

Hero image tests that did not

replaces the banner image (desktop/mobile) and sets a dark background color on the banner link
Image asset showing a CRO features visual hosted on a CDN
Replaces the hero section's video source with a different video for both mobile and desktop on the home page

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.

Who ran these tests

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.