Do layout A/B tests work on landing pages?

Worse here than elsewhere. Layout tests win 14% of the time on landing pages, against 19% across all page types. The category is not the problem; this page is.

It is also the strongest change type we can measure on landing 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 7% to 28%, so read the figure as directional.

The numbers

	landing pages	all page types
Tests analysed	42 tests	250+
Beat control	14%	19%
No measurable difference	67%	—
Lost to control	19%	—
Median lift when it won	not reported	—

Median traffic per variant was 2108 visitors.

What else is worth testing on landing pages

change type	win rate on landing pages	tests
Layout (this page)	14%	42 tests
Styling	11%	50+
CTA copy	10%	31 tests
Split URL	8%	250+
Headline	6%	100+

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

What counts as a layout test

Blocks move, reorder or change position. No copy is rewritten and no new content is added. If you moved a section *and* rewrote it, that is two variables and the result will not tell you which one worked.

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

Layout tests that won on landing pages

Replaces the original hero section with a new dark hero containing an eyebrow label, a new headline, and a card with role-selection buttons that link to signup

Layout tests that did not

replaced sidebar and filterable session cards with a centered hero headline and subhead plus a top nav, restructuring the session cards into a two-column topic grid with a single date shown and a show-all-dates link instead of listing multiple upcoming sessions per topic
Replaced the text headline with interactive rewards calculator form (RM input + CTA) with a static banner-style hero showcasing product images/prices of free gift options and a WhatsApp chat button

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.