Do price framing A/B tests work?

Not often — but when it works it moves more than anything else. Price framing wins 13% of the time, mid-pack. When it lands the median winner moves +27.0%, among the larger effects in this data — price is the one thing on a page every visitor evaluates, so a change there reaches everyone.

Low frequency, high magnitude. Worth a slot if you have the traffic to read it, because the wins are worth more than wins elsewhere.

The numbers

Tests analysed	100+
Beat control	13%
No measurable difference	75%
Lost to control	12%
Median lift when it won	+27%

Typical winning range: +14.4% to +35.6% for the middle half of winners. Median traffic per variant was 1475 visitors. Most ran on homepages (49), product pages (38), pricing pages (9).

What counts as a price framing test

The number stays the same; the presentation changes. Per-day instead of per-month, annual instead of monthly, fee broken out instead of rolled in, anchor shown or hidden.

Control and variant wireframe for a price framing A/B test — Control on the left, variant on the right. Only the changed element is highlighted.

Adjacent categories, and how often they win: layout (19%), hero image (17%), styling (15%).

Price framing tests by page type

page type	win rate	tests
homepages	16%	49 tests
product pages	8%	38 tests

Only page types with at least 30 price framing tests appear here.

Price framing tests that won

Upsell modal offering a credit toward Premium, with CTA to unlock Premium, a decline option warning of losing the savings, and a disclosure stating a charge today with annual renewal.
CTA/price copy offering a plan priced with a discount noted
Changes displayed price to one amount and crossed-out price to a lower amount, plus sets hidden form field values
Hides the default price, and adds price displays to one-time and subscription purchase labels, showing a 10% discounted price with struck-through original price for the subscription option
Adds a Save X discount label next to the sale price and restyles the price box layout and sizes

Price framing tests that did not

In the cart drawer, hides the original price element and strips the original total label while showing the discounted total with strikethrough styling
In cart drawer, hides the original pre-discount price element, shows the compare-at price with the original total label removed and strikethrough styling applied
Family-plan upsell block: headline offering to file/protect whole family, opt-out link, feature summary for multiple members from one dashboard, a charge/renewal disclosure, an add-unlimited-filings sub-heading, and a savings claim citing no per-filing fees and savings vs separate filings
Changed the Plus plan from a fixed-price CTA to a lead-cap pricing message with a consultative CTA, added lead-count dropdown selectors for Starter/Essential instead of static counts, and removed the billing-toggle discount badge.

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.

Why the rate looks like this

Price is the one element a visitor is guaranteed to evaluate. A change there reaches everyone who was going to decide, which is why the winners are large even though most attempts land flat.

How this compares

change type	win rate	tests
Layout	19%	351
Hero image	17%	160
Form	16%	81
CTA colour	16%	32
Styling	15%	1414
Price framing (this page)	13%	117
CTA copy	12%	315
Body copy	11%	337
Split URL	11%	1164
Headline	10%	918
Social proof	9%	196

FAQ

Is this the same as changing the price?

No. Changing the actual amount is a pricing decision with revenue consequences beyond the test. These are presentation changes at a constant price.

Should I test price framing or run a discount?

Different questions. Framing is free to keep if it wins; a discount costs margin forever. Test framing first for that reason alone.

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.