Do CTA copy A/B tests work on homepages?

About the same as anywhere else. CTA copy tests win 11% of the time on homepages, against 12% across all page types. This page neither helps nor hurts the change type.

It is not the best use of a test slot on this page though. Layout tests win 27% on homepages on 100+ tests.

The numbers

	homepages	all page types
Tests analysed	100+	250+
Beat control	11%	12%
No measurable difference	75%	—
Lost to control	14%	—
Median lift when it won	+24.7%	—

Median traffic per variant was 2226 visitors.

What else is worth testing on homepages

change type	win rate on homepages	tests
Layout	27%	100+
Hero image	18%	50+
Price framing	16%	49 tests
Social proof	15%	50+
Styling	15%	500+
Body copy	14%	100+
Split URL	14%	100+
CTA copy (this page)	11%	100+
Headline	10%	250+

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

What counts as a CTA copy test

The button's words change. Size, colour and position stay as they were. Change the colour too and you have two variables.

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

CTA copy tests that won on homepages

paired CTA choices framing signup as identity-theft protection vs. an opt-out link to skip protection
Changes the banner CTA link text to a view-item label and adds click tracking.
Changes text of catalog trial buttons to a free-download label and adds click tracking
CTA text urging inquiry about the project with scarcity note of only 3 spots remaining

CTA copy tests that did not

numbered CTA reading 'CONTACT SALES'
Changes hero CTA button text to a free consultation offer
Numbered step CTA reading a free-trial prompt as first item in a list

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.