Source: A/B Testing by Heidi Xiong
Introduction
A/B testing, also known as split testing or bucket testing, involves comparing two versions (Control Version A vs Treatment Version B) of a product, feature, or experience to determine which performs better according to predefined criteria. It is a fundamental technique in experimentation and used across disciplines such as web development, product design, marketing, and even AI development. In web design, A/B testing can consist of randomly showing different versions of a webpage or email to different user groups and comparing their responses. This article will cover the basic design methods of A/B Testing.
A/B tests are often designed with specific testing scenarios in mind. They rely on well-structured experimental designs to ensure that the results are reliable and actionable. The design method chosen will affect how participants are assigned to test conditions and how external factors are controlled. Below, we will analyze the most common design methods used in A/B testing. Two of the most widely used setups are: [1] Within-Subjects Design and [2] 50%-50% Between-Subjects Design
Source: NNGroup
1. Between-Subjects Design
In a 50%-50% between-subjects design, participants are randomly assigned to one of two groups, with each group exposed to only one version, either A or B. This classic A/B testing setup is common in web design, digital marketing, and product development to evaluate user engagement, conversion rates, and behavioral responses.
Example explaining this concept:
For instance, an online retailer might test two different checkout page designs by directing half of their site visitors to Version A and the other half to Version B, then compare which version results in more completed purchases.
The between-subjects approach eliminates learning effects and reduces direct comparison bias, as participants have no knowledge of the alternative version. However, this method typically requires a large enough sample size to ensure statistical significance, as individual differences across participants can introduce more variability into the results. For instance, achieving 80% power to detect a medium effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.5) generally requires around 64 participants per group NIH. Smaller effects or greater variability may demand much larger samples. When the experiment is not split 50-50 but instead rolled out to a small percentage of users (e.g., 5% or 10%), it is especially important to ensure that the control group is large enough to support meaningful comparisons. In such scenarios, it’s recommended that the control group be sized based on power calculations independent of the rollout ratio. Otherwise, underpowered tests can lead to inconclusive or misleading results. When properly randomized and scaled, this design provides robust insights into which version performs better across a broad user base.
2. Within-Subjects Design
In a within-subjects design, participants interact with both versions (A and B), and their responses are compared. This approach is effective when testing preferences, AI-generated responses, or personalized recommendations.
Example explaining this concept:
For example, an AI chatbot test involves showing users two responses to the same prompt, Response A and Response B, and asked which one they find more helpful or appropriate. Because each participant experiences both conditions, this design reduces variability and typically requires a smaller sample size than between-subjects designs.
Within-Subjects design introduces potential risks such as carryover effects, where exposure to one version influences the perception of the next. One specific concern is the order effect, where participants develop a bias toward whichever response is presented first. To mitigate this, researchers commonly apply a Latin Square design. This systematically rotates the order in which A and B are presented across different participants. This randomization helps distribute any order-related biases evenly, improving the reliability and interpretability of the results.
3. A/A Testing
A/A testing is a preliminary form of experimentation that compares two identical versions of a product, page, or experience. The goal of an A/A test is not to find a winning variation, but to validate the experimental setup itself. By assigning users randomly to two identical groups, researchers can check whether the randomization process works correctly, if metrics are being tracked consistently, and find unexpected biases or technical issues in the testing framework. A significant difference in performance between the two identical groups, may indicate flaws in data collection, sampling, or infrastructure. A/A testing is useful before launching an A/B test, as it establishes a statistical baseline, ensuring the reliability of results moving forward.
4. Sequential Testing
Sequential testing allows researchers to analyze data as it is collected, rather than waiting until the entire experiment is complete. This approach is particularly valuable for businesses aiming to make real-time decisions, because it enables them to adapt quickly based on emerging trends.
Example explaining this concept:
For example, a company running an A/B test on a marketing campaign might monitor conversion rates in real-time and decide to end the test early if one version is clearly outperforming the other. The key advantage of sequential testing is its support for faster decision-making.
5. Multi-Armed Bandit Testing
Multi-Armed Bandit (MAB) testing is an adaptive experimentation design method that dynamically allocates traffic to different variations based on their performance in real time. Unlike traditional A/B testing, which splits traffic evenly regardless of early results, MAB algorithms continuously learn and shift more users toward the better-performing options.
Example explaining this concept:
For example, if a company is testing multiple email subject lines, a multi-armed bandit approach will quickly identify which subject line generates the highest open rates and automatically direct more users toward it. This technique maximizes engagement even while the test is still running. This technique improves outcomes during the test itself, making it especially valuable in fast-paced or high-stakes environments. However, it requires careful monitoring to maintain a proper balance between exploration (testing all options sufficiently) and exploitation (favoring the best-performing option).
Conclusion
A/B testing is a well-known tool for evidence-based decision-making across industries. However, the effectiveness of any A/B test hinges on its experimental design. Choosing between a between-subjects or within-subjects setup and deciding whether to incorporate sequential or adaptive (multi-armed bandit) methods can significantly impact the validity and interpretability of your results. Each method comes with trade-offs. While between-subjects designs offer simplicity and scalability, within-subjects designs reduce variance but require careful control for order effects. Adaptive methods can accelerate gains during testing but require sophisticated monitoring, and pre-testing with A/A designs serves a vital role in ensuring experimental reliability. Selecting the right design requires aligning your testing strategy with your goals, context, and resources.
Videos for Further Learning
- Watch How to A/B Test at Product to get started on designing your own A/B tests (Runtime: 4 minutes).
- A/B Testing in Data Science Interviews by a Google Data Scientist | DataInterview is a great resource for preparing for A/B test interview questions (Runtime: 20 minutes).
Related Articles:
