Do split URL A/B tests work on product pages?

About the same as anywhere else. Split URL tests win 9% of the time on product pages, against 11% 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. Headline tests win 18% on product pages on 100+ tests.

The numbers

	product pages	all page types
Tests analysed	100+	1,000+
Beat control	9%	11%
No measurable difference	78%	—
Lost to control	13%	—
Median lift when it won	+29.8%	—

Median traffic per variant was 1168 visitors.

What else is worth testing on product pages

change type	win rate on product pages	tests
Headline	18%	100+
Styling	14%	250+
Body copy	9%	100+
Split URL (this page)	9%	100+
Social proof	8%	50+
Price framing	8%	38 tests
Layout	6%	50+
CTA copy	6%	48 tests

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

What counts as a split URL test

Traffic is split between two addresses. The variant is a different page at its own URL, not a modified version of the control.

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

Why there are no examples on this page

A split URL variant is a whole separate page, so every description of what changed reduces to "traffic goes to a different page". The detail lives on the variant page itself, which belongs to the customer.

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.