# Comparison Table or Plan Cards on a Pricing Page

Page: https://alidemirbas.com.tr/en/lab/ab-test-library/tests/comparison-table-or-plan-cards-on-a-pricing-page

## 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.

## 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.

## Primary metric

**Revenue per visitor (RPV)**: Compare revenue to see whether the presentation format changes results.

## Other metrics

- **Average plan value**: Use the purchased-plan mix to help explain revenue changes.
- **Plan selection rate**: Check whether more visitors choose a plan.
- **Comparison interaction rate**: Measure comparable feature interactions; scrolling or visibility alone does not prove reading.
- **Time to plan selection**: Read decision time alongside selection and revenue.

## What to check before and during the test

- **Format**: Present the same plans in a comparison table or separate cards.
- **Information**: Keep feature lists, wording, prices and plan order unchanged.
- **Unavailable features**: Use accurate and consistent visual treatment for features not included.
- **Expanded details**: Keep which details are open fixed; collapsed versus expanded is a separate test.
- **Mobile**: Make both formats readable and usable on small screens.

## What to watch when reading the result

- More 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.
- Any 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.
- Diagnostic 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](https://alidemirbas.com.tr/en/calculators/ab-test), 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.