About the same as anywhere else. Styling tests win 7% of the time on landing pages, against 11% across all page types. This page neither helps nor hurts the change type.
Layout tests carry a higher published rate on landing pages — 14% on 42 tests 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 3% to 17%, so read the figure as directional.
| landing pages | all page types | |
|---|---|---|
| Tests analysed | 50+ | 1,000+ |
| Beat control | 7% | 11% |
| No measurable difference | 62% | — |
| Lost to control | 31% | — |
| Median lift when it won | not reported | — |
Median traffic per variant was 635 visitors.
| change type | win rate on landing pages | tests |
|---|---|---|
| Layout | 14% | 42 tests |
| CTA copy | 10% | 31 tests |
| Styling (this page) | 7% | 50+ |
| Split URL | 6% | 250+ |
| Headline | 3% | 100+ |
Only change types with at least 30 tests on landing 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 | 42% |
| Lead / form submission | 19% |
| Signup / registration | 18% |
| Booking / appointment | 7% |
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.
Visual treatment shifts — spacing, weight, borders, colour, shadows — with the same content in the same order. Move the content and it is a layout test. Rewrite it and it is a copy test.
It hid several paragraphs, secondary call-to-action links, and card sections while leaving the remaining text unchanged.
The page hid a paragraph and a content block from view without changing any wording.
The mobile spacing and padding in the hero section and headline were adjusted, and the hero elements were reordered from headline, CTA, image, and link box without changing any text.
The main container’s top padding was adjusted, the h1 headline text was resized, and the font inside some buttons was made smaller.
The page hid the element with id B instead of showing it.
A body class was added so the sale banner styling was hidden or removed, while the wording stayed the same.
The CTA button’s color, outline, and size classes were changed while its text stayed the same.
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