Do styling A/B tests work on landing pages?

About the same as anywhere else. Styling tests win 11% of the time on landing pages, 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 14% on landing pages on 42 tests tests.

Small sample. Few of these tests cleared the bar. The 95% interval on that win rate runs 5% to 22%, so read the figure as directional.

The numbers

	landing pages	all page types
Tests analysed	50+	1,000+
Beat control	11%	15%
No measurable difference	58%	—
Lost to control	31%	—
Median lift when it won	not reported	—

Median traffic per variant was 635 visitors.

What else is worth testing on landing pages

change type	win rate on landing pages	tests
Layout	14%	42 tests
Styling (this page)	11%	50+
CTA copy	10%	31 tests
Split URL	8%	250+
Headline	6%	100+

Only change types with at least 30 tests on landing pages 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 landing pages

Adjusts top padding of main container, resizes an h1 headline text, and shrinks font size of text inside some buttons
Adjusts mobile spacing/padding on hero section and headline and reorders hero elements (headline, CTA, image, link box) without changing any text
Hides several paragraphs, secondary CTA links, and card sections without changing any remaining text
Changes the CTA link/button background color to green, no text changes

Styling tests that did not

hides the countdown offer element from the page
Changes font size, color, letter-spacing, and spacing of headline and surrounding text elements without altering wording
Hides several existing page sections/columns (main content area and specific nested divs) without changing any text

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.