Vendor reportMotion, 2026
Testing more ad variants leads advertisers to find more breakout winners, not just sharper intuition
Creatives
| Spend Tier (per month) | Average Testing Volume (per week) | Average Hit Rate (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Micro (<$10K) | 2.8 | 4.03% |
| Small ($10K-$50K) | 4.1 | 6.47% |
| Medium ($50K-$200K) | 6.67 | 8.13% |
| Large ($200K-$1M) | 11.24 | 8.64% |
| Enterprise ($1M+) | 18.85 | 8.8% |
Meta ads: ads tested per week and hit rate, by advertiser spend tier (count, %)
- Reader Note:
- The mechanism the report gives is arithmetic rather than skill: more ads tested means more chances of hitting an exceptional one, and it says plainly that volume “doesn't make the average ad better”. A lower hit rate at a larger advertiser can therefore mean heavier testing rather than worse creative. A winner here is Motion's own threshold — an ad that spent at least ten times its account's median — so this measures where Meta concentrated budget, not sales or profit.
- Evidence:
- Observed behaviour
- Vendor interest:
- High — This comes from a company with a commercial interest in this market, so it is not a neutral source.
- Sample:
- An anonymized dataset of 550,000+ Facebook and Instagram ads from 6,000+ advertisers, representing about $1.3 billion in spend.
Good for
Comparing yourself against a similar segment, and choosing what to test next.
Not for
- Saying that one thing caused another, or predicting what you would get.
- This comes from a company with a commercial interest in this market, so it is not a neutral source.
- The source talks about this as cause and effect — that is its reading, not a finding.
- This is an aggregated or average number that covers very different cases. Real results in a particular segment may differ.
- The source says how much it looked at, but not how any of it was chosen.




