In line with both baselines. Styling tests win 10% in Professional Services, against 11% for styling tests generally and 12% for Professional Services generally. Neither the category nor the vertical is moving this much.
The strongest change type we can measure in Professional Services is Layout at 28% on 32 tests tests.
| Professional Services | all industries | |
|---|---|---|
| Tests analysed | 100+ | 1,000+ |
| Beat control | 10% | 11% |
| No measurable difference | 81% | — |
| Lost to control | 10% | — |
| Median lift when it won | +37.3% | — |
Median traffic per variant was 1557 visitors. Most ran on homepages (107), category pages (12), product pages (10).
| change type | win rate in Professional Services | tests |
|---|---|---|
| Layout | 28% | 32 tests |
| Body copy | 11% | 36 tests |
| Styling (this page) | 10% | 100+ |
| Split URL | 10% | 50+ |
| Headline | 8% | 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 |
|---|---|
| Purchase / order complete | 46% |
| Reached a later funnel step | 15% |
| On-page click / engagement | 12% |
| 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.
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 Professional Services benchmarks; rates across all industries are on the styling benchmark.
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 swapped in a localized hero and how-it-works image variant and changed spacing, sizing, and title and icon visibility through CSS without changing the wording.
On smaller screens, the hero section padding and overflow were adjusted, and a fixed mobile proof bar was added that showed only the first proof item with a styled icon, title, and description.
A fixed mobile social-proof bar was added below the header, with its positioning, spacing, and text styling adjusted while the wording stayed the same.
The page hid the feature header, the benefit items list, and the trust rating badge elements.
The calc banner button's background and border colors changed, and its hover color was updated, while the text stayed the same.
The container element was hidden instead of being shown on the page.
The product highlights section was moved to the top and its transition animation was turned off.
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