Not often — but when it works it moves the number a long way. Price framing wins 11% of the time, around the middle of the pack. When it lands the median winner moves +27.5%, a middling effect by the standards of this data — price is the one thing on a page every visitor evaluates, so a change there reaches everyone.
Low frequency, high magnitude. Worth a slot if you have the traffic to read it, because when it lands the move is substantial.
| Tests analysed | 100+ |
| Beat control | 11% |
| No measurable difference | 77% |
| Lost to control | 12% |
| Median lift when it won | +27.5% |
Typical winning range: +15.8% to +44.5% for the middle half of winners. Median traffic per variant was 1475 visitors. Most ran on homepages (49), product pages (38), pricing pages (9).
The number stays the same; the presentation changes. Per-day instead of per-month, annual instead of monthly, fee broken out instead of rolled in, anchor shown or hidden.
Adjacent categories, and how often they win: layout (15%), hero image (12%), styling (11%).
| page type | win rate | tests |
|---|---|---|
| homepages | 16% | 49 tests |
| product pages | 8% | 38 tests |
Only page types with at least 30 price framing tests appear here.
The base price was hidden, and the original price with a 10% discounted subscription price in strikethrough was added next to the purchase option labels, while the pack-size selector was moved into the add-to-cart aside.
It added a discount label showing how much was saved next to the sale price and changed the price box layout and sizes.
The default price was hidden, and the one-time and subscription labels were updated to show prices, with the subscription option using a discounted price and struck-through original price.
The displayed price changed to one amount, the crossed-out price changed to a lower amount, and the hidden form field values were set.
The headline and supporting copy changed to offer a credit toward Premium for a lower today price, with renewal terms and options to continue or decline.
It added a “Save X%” or “Save X” label next to the price and changed the price box layout and sizes.
A simple subscribe-and-save price box with bullet points was replaced by a best-value pricing panel that showed a crossed-out price, per-serving cost, subscription benefits, and a one-time purchase option with a button.
The plain product description and simple subscribe line were replaced with a highlighted subscription offer box that showed a price comparison, savings badge, benefit checklist, delivery frequency selector, and separate buy-once option.
The add-to-cart button label added original and discounted price text, and the add-to-cart and size-select buttons turned red to highlight the sale price.
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.
Price is the one element a visitor is guaranteed to evaluate. A change there reaches everyone who was going to decide, which is why the winners are large even though most attempts land flat.
| change type | win rate | tests |
|---|---|---|
| CTA colour | 16% | 32 |
| Layout | 15% | 351 |
| Form | 12% | 81 |
| CTA copy | 12% | 315 |
| Hero image | 12% | 160 |
| Price framing (this page) | 11% | 117 |
| Styling | 11% | 1414 |
| Split URL | 10% | 1165 |
| Headline | 8% | 918 |
| Social proof | 8% | 196 |
| Body copy | 6% | 337 |
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 | 74% |
| Add to cart | 10% |
| On-page click / engagement | 5% |
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, and price framing tests sit at 2%.
Hold the metric fixed and the spread narrows sharply. Comparing only tests measured against a business outcome, price framing wins 9% (4–17%) rather than 11%, and 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.
No. Changing the actual amount is a pricing decision with revenue consequences beyond the test. These are presentation changes at a constant price.
Different questions. Framing is free to keep if it wins; a discount costs margin forever. Test framing first for that reason alone.
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