Pricing
Comparison Table or Plan Cards on a Pricing Page
A comparison table aligns features for direct comparison. Cards group information around each plan, which may make one plan easier to scan but differences harder to compare. For this to be a format test, include the same plan information in both layouts.
A/B test scenario. This page is a test plan, not the result of a real experiment.
- Pricing
- Revenue per visitor (RPV)
Option A vs Option B
Two alternatives; neither is the incumbent.
- Changed
- Options
- Page
- Pricing
- Difference
- changed
Hypothesis
If most visitors compare plans feature by feature, a table that lines up the rows may make differences easier to see and lift revenue per visitor. If most visitors focus on a single offer, cards that gather each plan in one place may be quicker to scan and earn more instead.
Test plan
When to run this test
Repeated scrolling between plans on the pricing page, support requests about feature differences and long pauses before a plan is chosen all suggest visitors struggle to weigh plans side by side. Whichever format suits how visitors decide should show more interaction with comparable features and a shorter time to plan selection. Before launch, confirm that feature names match in the table and the cards and that the table shows no placeholder feature you do not actually offer; if the issue is the price itself, a format change will not fix it.
How to measure success
Revenue per visitor (RPV)
Compare revenue to see whether the presentation format changes results.
Also track
- Average plan valueUse the purchased-plan mix to help explain revenue changes.
- Plan selection rateCheck whether more visitors choose a plan.
- Comparison interaction rateMeasure comparable feature interactions; scrolling or visibility alone does not prove reading.
- Time to plan selectionRead decision time alongside selection and revenue.
How to set it up
- FormatPresent the same plans in a comparison table or separate cards.
- InformationKeep feature lists, wording, prices and plan order unchanged.
- Unavailable featuresUse accurate and consistent visual treatment for features not included.
- Expanded detailsKeep which details are open fixed; collapsed versus expanded is a separate test.
- MobileMake both formats readable and usable on small screens.
What to watch when reading the result
- 1More comparison interaction or a faster choice does not justify a launch on its own; the real comparison is revenue per visitor. Use the purchased-plan mix to explain revenue, and if the table shifts buyers toward pricier plans, make sure what the lower-priced plan lacks is shown accurately, not with alarming marks.
- 2Any difference you find belongs to this plan set and this level of detail; collapsed versus expanded details is a separate test. A gap on small screens may come from readability rather than format, so judge mobile apart from desktop.
- 3Diagnostic metrics such as time to plan selection should not pick a winner when the gap is small. Check whether the gap in plan selection rate stands out from chance with the A/B test significance calculator, and if the revenue gap also stays unclear, record no detected difference, not proof that the formats perform the same.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do scrolling and visibility prove the table was read?
No. Use revenue per visitor as the primary outcome. Comparable feature interactions and time to plan choice are diagnostic.
How can the table-versus-card test be fair on mobile?
Keep both formats readable and usable. Do not shrink the table into illegibility. Preserve equivalent information access in the two experiences.
Can missing features in cheaper plans be emphasized?
Represent omissions accurately and consistently without exaggerated warnings. Inspect purchased-plan distribution to explain revenue changes.
More tests in Pricing
All testsPrice First or Benefits First on a Pricing Page
PricingRevenue per visitor (RPV)
Experiment idea that moves the price above or below the benefit section, showing what each order does to expectation setting and to perceived value.
Annual Total or Monthly Equivalent Price A/B Test
PricingRevenue per visitor (RPV)
A/B test idea that swaps the headline price between a full annual figure and its monthly equivalent, with notes on how clearly the total must stay visible.
Showing Unit Price Next to Package Totals A/B Test
PricingRevenue per visitor (RPV)
Experiment example adding a per-unit figure beside the package total, covering how it eases comparison and how it can crowd the price area or oversell.