I recently led a successful A/B test for a client in the travel sector, focusing on SEO content pages: more precisely informational travel guides that tend to be non-transactional and usually show lower conversion rates. These pages were facing high bounce rates and low engagement, so we decided to experiment with a new layout. Instead of long, scroll-heavy paragraphs, we organized the content into clickable tabs. This structural change allowed key CTAs and product links (previously hidden beneath the content) to be showcased earlier and more prominently on the page. On some pages the CTAs came even above the fold on desktop. The winning version resulted in a fantastic 32% increase in CTA click-through rates and a 17% drop in bounce rates. In addition, users were more engaged as they explored the tabbed content, which led to longer time spent on the site and better interaction overall. The shorter, more digestible layout greatly enhanced page usability and strengthened important SEO signals by keeping users engaged instead of having them leave quickly.
One of our most surprising SEO wins at Design Hero came from a simple A/B test on blog headlines. Not the copy on the page—just the title tag in SERPs. We had a blog post ranking on page two for a competitive keyword: "How much does a website cost in the UK?" It was a solid article. Long-form, well-researched, with original pricing data. But the click-through rate was underwhelming—around 1.8%. Google clearly wasn't seeing enough engagement to push it up. So we ran a test. We created two headline variations: A) "How Much Does a Website Cost in the UK? [2025 Price Guide]" B) "UK Website Costs: What You Should Pay (With Real Examples)" Same content. Same URL. Just rotating the title tag every few weeks using a redirect and tracking impressions + CTR in Google Search Console. Result? Version B—"What You Should Pay"—doubled the click-through rate to 3.7%. Within 6 weeks, the post jumped to the top 3 for our target keyword. And organic leads from that one article increased by 80%. Here's why it worked: It implied hidden knowledge ("what you should pay") It tapped into buyer anxiety ("am I being overcharged?") It promised real-world insight ("with examples") Big idea: SEO isn't just about rankings—it's about earning the click. CTR is a ranking factor. And emotional copy beats generic every time. My tip for other founders: Test meta titles like you test ad headlines. Use strong emotional triggers. Track results in GSC. And remember—small tweaks can drive big traffic.
In my experience as an SEO strategist, one impactful A/B test I ran involved updating title tags to prepend "The Best" to high-value content pages. We hypothesized that this would boost click-through rates by signaling quality and relevance. After running the test via SearchPilot, the winning variation saw a 10% increase in organic traffic, translating to an additional ~11,000 sessions per month—demonstrating both improved CTR and ranking benefits. My advice: test minor, hypothesis-driven tweaks (like adding "The Best," local modifiers, or questions); use a proper SEO A/B platform to isolate external factors; monitor through GSC or GA4; and once a clear winner emerges, roll it out site-wide. Even small changes, when validated through real-world testing, can yield substantial SEO gains.
One of the most interesting tests was looking at how internal links are placed on a blog page and how this impacts the user's behaviour. We wanted to see if changing the link positions encouraged the user to explore more content. Would it lead to better engagement? To do this, we created two versions of a blog post, and in the first version, we put internal links within the article itself. For the second version, we included the links in a separate "related articles" section at the end of the blog instead. Both versions had the same internal links, but we used different area placements on the page. We actually found that the first version, where the links were placed within the text, worked better than the second version, and it had a much bigger click-through rate. The links that were part of the article made users more likely to click on them.
I believe one of our most impactful A/B tests was on the headline and intro of a long form service page targeting "SEO copywriting services." The original version was keyword rich but felt generic. For the variation, we rewrote the intro to speak directly to the reader's pain point, low traffic despite high quality content, and focused on clarity over keyword stuffing. We ran both versions using Google Optimize and tracked key SEO signals: bounce rate, scroll depth, and dwell time. The new variation increased average time on page by 46% and lowered bounce rate by 29%. Within weeks, we saw a ranking jump from position 11 to 4 for the primary keyword. The insight? Sometimes, plain language wins over keyword heavy intros. Speak to the user first, and search engines follow. That single test reshaped how we write all top of funnel SEO content now.
We tested two versions of a Shopify client's product page layout. One prioritized aesthetics with large images, the other focused on lightweight content with faster load time. The quicker version won, even though it looked slightly less "pretty." SEO gains came from better performance scores and indexability. Page speed affected bounce rates and time-to-index dramatically. We've since advised most e-commerce clients to trim image size early. Form should never override function when it comes to search visibility. That test made performance optimization part of our standard onboarding checklist.
We actually try to A/B test everything, given we're a marketing company, because we want to provide the best for our clients. But one of the most important tests we run is on the call-to-action on a landing page. The problem is that there are often a lot of bounce rates. People clearly visit with the intent to learn more, but they leave without taking action. We decided to test this based on the theory that it was the call to action that wasn't grabbing their attention. So we decided to test two types of CTA's. We started with the generic ones like 'learn more', and compared it to a more action-driven one, 'download for free today'. We ran the test for about four weeks, and we actually found that the benefit-driven call to actions outperformed the generic ones. It was as simple as changing the messaging to influence the user's expectations. Plus, who doesn't want something for free?
Absolutely. A/B testing is baked into the way we work—especially on eCommerce sites where a seemingly small change can lead to major revenue shifts, for better or worse. One standout example was our work with GoCity. They already had a strong brand, but we saw an opportunity to fine-tune how product content was presented on key landing pages. Specifically, we A/B tested the structure of their product descriptions—Version A was their original, quite wordy layout; Version B was our streamlined rewrite with clear USPs, punchy headers, and better mobile scannability. The result? Version B lifted organic engagement by 17% and increased click-through rates from search results by 12%. But the clincher—conversion rates on those pages went up 9%. That's a significant bump, especially at the scale they operate. It's always satisfying when instinct and experience line up with hard data—and even more satisfying when we can show a client that a well-executed tweak isn't just design fluff, it's business impact.
A little while back, we ran an A/B test on one of our most visited pages—our activewear collection—because we wanted to understand how small changes might improve both SEO and the overall experience for our customers. We focused on one key element: the headline at the top of the page. The original version was product-focused, something simple like "Girls' Activewear." For the test, we tried a variation that was more emotionally engaging and value-driven: "Confidence in Every Move - Stylish, Functional Activewear for Girls." The difference it made was meaningful. The new headline not only increased the time spent on the page, but we also saw a notable boost in organic traffic within just a few weeks. It turns out that when we speak more directly to our purpose—empowering girls and celebrating movement—search engines respond, and so do people. It was a beautiful reminder that the technical side of SEO and the heart of our brand don't have to be separate. When they work together, we can reach more families in a way that feels true to who we are.
When working with a large SaaS company, we saw a clear opportunity to improve bottom-of-funnel SEO performance. The team was open to bold approaches, so I partnered with legal to develop a series of comparison and list-style pages, including "Best [Product] Tools of [Year]" and "[Brand] vs [Brand]" articles. We took the unusual step of discussing competitors directly on our own site, but we kept it professional, highlighting only their strengths and maintaining a keen focus on our own product. The hypothesis was simple: if we could capture high-value comparison traffic, we could own the narrative once users landed on our site. We were right. Rather than relying on traditional A/B testing, we deployed a multi-page experimentation model. We launched pages targeting different semantic variations of core competitor and category terms. Each month, we analyzed traffic, rankings, and engagement. The top performers were consolidated and optimized, while underperformers were rewritten or sunset in favor of new variants. This iterative testing model helped us break into highly competitive SERPs and resulted in one of the company's most successful SEO campaigns of the year. Within the first quarter of launch, these pages were responsible for over 10% of all company conversions, proving that thoughtful SEO experimentation at the bottom of the funnel can deliver serious impact.
We successfully used A/B testing to optimize a fashion ecommerce brand's PPC campaigns, which significantly impacted their website traffic and overall SEO performance. We tested 1400+ sets of their inventory, focusing on different combinations to determine the most effective way to segment their large product catalog. The A/B testing involved experimenting with various inventory combinations, targeting strategies, and different ad creatives. The winning variation showed a remarkable improvement, achieving results 1.5x earlier than expected. This allowed us to reduce ad spend while maximizing the reach and efficiency of the campaigns. As a result, not only did we optimize the ad targeting and improve the conversion rates, but we also saw an increase in website traffic, which had a positive effect on SEO metrics such as clicks, impressions, and overall visibility in search engines.
We tested different formats for alt text across image-heavy blog posts. One used generic image descriptions, the other used keyword-optimized alt tags. The optimized version helped improve image search impressions dramatically. We noticed new traffic channels that weren't showing before the test. This changed how we tag every media asset across our sites. Images became a hidden content layer we could optimize for reach. The shift also improved accessibility, which Google increasingly values. That test reminded us SEO can hide in overlooked details.
We tried 2 different prices and did A/B testing with ads to see which one had higher conversion and profit. The higher price actually had similar conversion so we kept the higher price.
We ran an A/B test on EcoATM's location page templates to measure the impact of keyword-driven H1 headers versus the original generic headers. One version included the city and device type directly in the header, such as "Sell Your iPhone in San Diego." The other version kept our standard copy without the localized or device-specific keywords. The goal was to determine if aligning page headers with high-volume search terms would move the needle on organic traffic. After a 45-day test across dozens of city pages, the version with keyword-optimized headers outperformed the control in both click-through rate and indexed impressions. Google crawled the winning variant faster, and we noticed higher intent queries driving more users to those pages. That shift translated into stronger engagement metrics, especially page duration and form starts. The lesson was simple. You don't need to overhaul a site to improve performance. Testing core on-page elements tied to how users search, like headers and page titles, delivers measurable gains. We've since rolled that learning into other sections of the site, focusing on scalable content structure and keyword intent. It's repeatable, measurable, and low-effort compared to rewriting or redesigning full templates. Results justified a permanent change across the site.
One instance where I successfully used A/B testing to optimize for SEO involved testing title tag formats across a real estate client's city-specific listing pages. What we tested: We compared two formats across 50+ city pages: Control (A): Homes for Sale in [City] | [Brand Name] Variant (B): [City] Real Estate Listings - New Homes, Prices & Neighborhood Info Why we tested it: The control was standard but generic. The variant leaned into more search intent modifiers (like "prices" and "neighborhood info") to improve click-through and relevance for long-tail queries. Results: Over a 6-week period: The variant saw a 14% increase in organic CTR, measured through Search Console Pages using the variant climbed 1-2 positions on average for high-volume terms like "[city] homes" and "[city] real estate" The client also reported a 9% increase in qualified lead form submissions from those landing pages This test confirmed that even small changes to metadata — when grounded in actual search behavior — can lead to measurable improvements in both visibility and conversions.
We had a client in the home renovation space. Their service page was ranking top five for "kitchen renovations Sydney" but the click-through rate was terrible, hovering around 1.8%. Traffic was decent, but no one was clicking. Classic case of ranking without resonance. So we A/B tested two headline variations on the H1. Original: Kitchen Renovations Sydney | Affordable & Professional Variation: Custom Kitchen Renovations in Sydney That Don't Blow Your Budget The second one sounded like a real person wrote it. It spoke to the exact fear most people have: "I want a nice kitchen, but I don't want to go broke." After 4 weeks, CTR jumped to 3.1% and bounce rate dropped. Same ranking, better message. Takeaway? Ranking gets you seen. Copy gets you clicks. Test your H1s like you'd test ad copy. If your headline reads like it came from a template, rewrite it.
A perfect instance of where I successfully used A/B testing is the optimisation of a blog post that was already receiving moderate traffic. We decided to improve the click-through rates from the search engine results page. Here's the entire process. We identified a high-traffic blog post that was ranking well in the SERPs but was not achieving the expected click-through rate (CTR) results. The original meta description was generic and failed to capture the value of the content. We decided to create variations. Variation A: Original meta description that was factual but less engaging. Variation B: We incorporated a new compelling meta description with a CTA and key takeaways in a more engaging manner. We used the A/B testing tool and checked the two variations for different sets of users booking the blog posts in the search results. The results were: Variation B has a 20% higher CTR compared to Variation A. This resulted in a slight decrease in bounce rates, accompanied by an increase in organic traffic.
I need to be transparent - as an AI assistant, I don't personally conduct A/B tests or optimize websites. I don't have direct experience running experiments or measuring their impact on SEO performance. However, I can share what effective SEO A/B testing typically looks like based on documented methodologies and common successful test cases: SEO A/B Testing Framework Common High-Impact Test Elements: Title tag variations - Testing different headline structures, keyword placement, or emotional triggers Meta description optimization - Comparing different calls-to-action or benefit-focused descriptions Header structure testing - Evaluating H1/H2 variations for both user engagement and search performance Content length experiments - Testing comprehensive long-form versus concise focused content Internal linking patterns - Comparing different anchor text strategies or linking frequency Typical Testing Approach: Successful SEO A/B tests usually focus on elements that affect both search rankings and user behavior - like title tags that improve click-through rates from search results, which can positively impact rankings over time. Common Winning Patterns: Many documented tests show that variations focusing on user intent and clear value propositions tend to outperform keyword-stuffed alternatives, even for SEO purposes. Measurement Considerations: SEO A/B testing requires longer testing periods than conversion optimization (often 3-6 months) since search ranking changes take time to materialize and stabilize. Strategic Insight: The most valuable SEO tests often reveal that what improves user experience also tends to improve search performance, supporting the idea that user-focused optimization serves both goals. What specific elements of your website are you considering testing? I can help you think through a structured approach for your particular situation.
"We ran an A/B test on two versions of a landing page for a Google Ads campaign targeting heritage Spanish speakers—one in English, one in Spanish. The Spanish version clearly resonated more, leading to a noticeable increase in conversions. It helped us connect better with that audience and outperform competitors in that segment. The takeaway? Language can be a powerful lever when optimizing for both SEO and user experience."
Oh, absolutely! I remember one time I was really struggling to increase the time visitors spent on my site. So, I decided to experiment with the format of the blog posts. The setup was simple: A/B testing between a longer, more detailed version of the articles versus shorter, more concise ones. After a few weeks of testing and gathering data, the results were super clear. The longer posts not only kept people on the page longer, but they also drastically reduced the bounce rate. What really surprised me was that these more detailed articles also started ranking better on search engines for targeted keywords. It was a game changer and totally reinforced how tailoring content to user preferences can significantly benefit SEO. So, hey, if you're unsure about content length, maybe giving A/B testing a shot could reveal some unexpected insights for your site too!