In line with both baselines. CTA copy tests win 10% in Finance & Insurance, against 12% for CTA copy tests generally and 12% for Finance & Insurance generally. Neither the category nor the vertical is moving this much.
The strongest change type we can measure in Finance & Insurance is Styling at 14% on 50+ tests.
Small winner set. Few of these tests cleared the bar. The 95% interval on that win rate runs 4% to 24%, so read the figure as directional.
| Finance & Insurance | all industries | |
|---|---|---|
| Tests analysed | 39 tests | 250+ |
| Beat control | 10% | 12% |
| No measurable difference | 54% | — |
| Lost to control | 36% | — |
| Median lift when it won | not reported | — |
Median traffic per variant was 1024 visitors. Most ran on lead capture pages (17), homepages (8), other pages (8).
| change type | win rate in Finance & Insurance | tests |
|---|---|---|
| Styling | 14% | 50+ |
| Split URL | 12% | 100+ |
| CTA copy (this page) | 10% | 39 tests |
| Headline | 9% | 50+ |
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 |
|---|---|
| Lead / form submission | 32% |
| Signup / registration | 20% |
| On-page click / engagement | 14% |
| Purchase / order complete | 11% |
Outcomes below 5% of the set are not listed, so these do not sum to 100. Too few tests in this exact cut to break out on their own, so this is the whole industry. 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.
The industry overview is at Finance & Insurance benchmarks; rates across all industries are on the CTA copy benchmark.
The button's words change. Size, colour and position stay as they were. Change the colour too and you have two variables.
The CTA button text changed from two action-oriented options to a single qualification check prompt.
The button text changed from an unnumbered call to action to a numbered one.
The CTA text changed from an invitation to simulate borrowing capacity to a correctly spelled version of the same message.
The confirmation flow changed from a casual heading and consent text to wording that matched a first-person button label.
The form placeholder changed from a standard address prompt to a more conversational one, and the CTA button changed from a direct label to a question-style qualification prompt.
The CTA button text changed from a debt-advice message to a qualification-check message.
The form placeholder changed from a full address prompt to a shorter address prompt, and the button text changed from a qualification check to a savings estimate.
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