Do price framing A/B tests work on homepages?

Better here than elsewhere. Price framing tests win 16% of the time on homepages, against 11% across all page types — 5 points better. If you are going to test price framing anywhere, this is the page for it.

Layout tests carry a higher published rate on homepages — 20% on 100+ tests — though see the note below before reading that as a recommendation.

Small sample. Few of these tests cleared the bar. The 95% interval on that win rate runs 9% to 29%, so read the figure as directional.

The numbers

Won 16% No measurable change 73% Lost 10%

	homepages	all page types
Tests analysed	49 tests	100+
Beat control	16%	11%
No measurable difference	73%	—
Lost to control	10%	—
Median lift when it won	not reported	—

Median traffic per variant was 469 visitors.

What else is worth testing on homepages

change type	win rate on homepages	tests
Layout	20%	100+
Price framing (this page)	16%	49 tests
Hero image	15%	50+
Split URL	13%	100+
CTA copy	11%	100+
Social proof	10%	50+
Styling	10%	500+
Headline	8%	250+
Body copy	8%	100+

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

What tests on homepages measured

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	43%
Signup / registration	16%
On-page click / engagement	14%
Lead / form submission	8%

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.

Why this table is not a ranking

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.

What counts as a price framing test

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.

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

Price framing tests that won on homepages

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.

E-commerce+35.6%
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.

E-commerce+27.5%
The displayed price changed to one amount, the crossed-out price changed to a lower amount, and the hidden form field values were set.

Professional Services+44.5%
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.

Professional Services+27%

Price framing tests that did not

A VAT toggle was added, and VAT-inclusive prices were shown alongside the existing prices in the cart, mini cart, and tiered pricing.

E-commerceNo significant difference
It added a calculated discount percentage badge next to each configurable option’s label and restyled the price and label layout.

E-commerceNo significant difference
The financing modal list changed from its previous pricing display to show new monthly and total price breakdowns for the watch and phone models.

E-commerceNo significant difference

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.