8% of A/B tests on Travel & Hospitality sites beat their control. That is across 100+ tested variants, ranking 9 of 11 industries we can measure.
Within Travel & Hospitality the highest published rate belongs to Styling at 12% on 40 tests tests — see the note below on why that is not the same as it being the best thing to test.
| Tested variants | 100+ |
| Beat control | 8% |
| 95% interval on that rate | 5% to 14% |
| Median lift when it won | +24.2% |
Only change types with at least 30 tests in this industry appear here. Rates across all industries are on the change type benchmarks.
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.
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 | 31% |
| Booking / appointment | 23% |
| Reached a later funnel step | 14% |
| Lead / form submission | 9% |
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.
A primary goal decides whether a test won. Teams usually watch more than that while it runs, and the pattern says something about the funnel they care about.
| also tracked | share of supplementary goals |
|---|---|
| Lead / form submission | 22% |
| Booking / appointment | 16% |
| On-page click / engagement | 14% |
| Product or content page reached | 13% |
37% of tests across this data carry a supplementary goal we could identify, a median of 2 each, and this describes those tests rather than all of them. Mida's one-click engagement metrics are excluded — they sit on roughly a third of tests and reflect the platform offering them rather than a deliberate choice.
Industry is derived from the verified domain the Mida pixel actually fired on, not from what anyone told us at signup. That distinction matters: where we hold both, the self-reported industry and the verified one disagree 65% of the time. Domains the classifier could not place from their name were fetched and read directly, bringing coverage to 97.8% of tested variants.
| industry | win rate | variants |
|---|---|---|
| E-commerce | 10% | 1,000+ |
| SaaS / Software | 9% | 500+ |
| Professional Services | 12% | 250+ |
| Finance & Insurance | 12% | 250+ |
| Education | 9% | 250+ |
| Health & Wellness | 12% | 250+ |
| Media & Publishing | 12% | 100+ |
| Marketplace | 8% | 100+ |
| Travel & Hospitality (this page) | 8% | 100+ |
| Healthcare | 6% | 100+ |
| Nonprofit | 10% | 40 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.
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