Do styling A/B tests work on homepages?

About the same as anywhere else. Styling tests win 15% of the time on homepages, against 15% 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	500+	1,000+
Beat control	15%	15%
No measurable difference	72%	—
Lost to control	13%	—
Median lift when it won	+14.7%	—

Median traffic per variant was 3850 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 (this page)	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 styling test

Visual treatment shifts — spacing, weight, borders, colour, shadows — with the same content in the same order. Move the content and it is a layout test. Rewrite it and it is a copy test.

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

Styling tests that won on homepages

Sets a fixed height of 760px on an element, changing its layout size without altering content
Adjusts hero H1 spacing/size and restyles the trust row, replacing award badge images with a star-rating/review-count badge (visual/layout change, no wording change).
Hides the circle wrapper and a nested section/div element on the page
Hides the v1 header button and shows the v2 header button instead

Styling tests that did not

Makes header and nav bar sticky and shrinks/resizes header elements (logo, search input, nav links) on scroll
Hides an existing page element (div) without changing any wording
Changes the second link/button's background to yellow and text to black, no wording change

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.