Do social proof A/B tests work on homepages?

Better here than elsewhere. Social proof tests win 15% of the time on homepages, against 9% across all page types — 6 points better. If you are going to test social proof anywhere, this is the page for it.

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

Small sample. Few of these tests cleared the bar. The 95% interval on that win rate runs 8% to 26%, so read the figure as directional.

The numbers

	homepages	all page types
Tests analysed	50+	100+
Beat control	15%	9%
No measurable difference	70%	—
Lost to control	15%	—
Median lift when it won	not reported	—

Median traffic per variant was 2441 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 (this page)	15%	50+
Styling	15%	500+
Body copy	14%	100+
Split URL	14%	100+
CTA copy	11%	100+
Headline	10%	250+

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

What counts as a social proof test

Testimonials, star ratings, customer logos, user counts or review snippets are added, moved or removed.

Control on the left, variant on the right. For how this differs from adjacent categories, see the social proof benchmark.

Social proof tests that won on homepages

statement citing 40,000+ self-employed people in Germany as social proof, framed as a numbered step
Replaces the taking capsules info block with a subscription benefits list when one-time purchase is selected, restoring original content when subscription is chosen
statement inviting people to join a claimed 40,000+ Belgian freelancers
Adds a fixed social-proof bar with icons/titles/descriptions below the header (hidden on mobile widths)

Social proof tests that did not

headline citing 40,000+ self-employed people in Germany as social proof
statement inviting freelancers to join with a claim of over 40,000 Belgian independents
Inserts a ratings badge image above the H1 and hides the existing logo/rating section

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.