salessmash
See resultsTry free

Client A/B test evidence

Creative that earns its place in the feed.

This page is built for real control-versus-variant screenshots and the measured uplift behind them. We publish a result only after the experiment source, metric definition and client usage permission are verified.

Discuss my product ads ↗

Evidence library

The result, in Meta’s own reporting.

These captures preserve the test windows, spend and performance numbers from Meta Ads Manager. Client and campaign-identifying names are redacted.

Meta Ads A/B testDec 29, 2025 – Jan 1, 2026
A Vanilla controlB Designed feed
Redacted Meta Ads A/B test result from Dec 29, 2025 – Jan 1, 2026
Cost per purchase−89.2%
kr370.93 → kr39.96 at near-identical spend

Purchases increased from 12 to 111. Meta marked the designed-feed campaign as the winner with 95% or more confidence.

Campaign-identifying names are blurred; test dates, metrics and Meta’s result labels remain visible.
Meta Ads A/B testJan 9–22, 2026
A Vanilla controlB Designed feed
Redacted Meta Ads A/B test result from Jan 9–22, 2026
Cost per purchase−18.4%
kr59.15 → kr48.29 at near-identical spend

Purchases increased from 270 to 328. Meta described this test as similar results, so it is presented as directional rather than a statistically confirmed win.

Campaign-identifying names are blurred; test dates, metrics and Meta’s result labels remain visible.

How we report results

Enough context to make the uplift believable.

01
Like-for-like creative test

Control and designed variant, shown exactly as they entered the auction.

02
Commercial metric defined

ROAS, CTR, conversion rate or revenue uplift—never an unlabeled percentage.

03
Test context attached

Channel, date range, catalog scope and caveats stay next to the result.

Want your catalog to become the next case?

Start with one product or share your current product-ad economics for a more useful conversation.

Try the free studio ↗Get a personalized quote