Frequently asked questions.
5 questions
No. Parallel testing uses statistical isolation — each test's variants are independently randomized, and overlap between concurrent tests is treated as a factorial design. Microsoft, Google, and Booking.com have published the math: in 4,000+ Microsoft experiments, meaningful interactions appeared in 0.002% of cases.
Depends on traffic. On a €1M+/month brand we typically run 6–10 concurrent A/B tests across different funnel stages. Booking.com runs over a thousand at any moment. The ceiling is statistical power per test, not the number of tests.
Most agencies built their process around one test at a time because that was easier to manage manually. The math has been settled for fifteen years; the workflow hasn't caught up at most shops. We rebuilt our internal tooling around parallel from day one.
We use a test-conflict matrix at the design stage. Two tests touching the same DOM element get sequenced, not paralleled. Tests on independent elements (homepage hero + checkout button, for example) run concurrently with no risk.
Each individual test runs the same duration it would otherwise. What changes is the throughput — you get 6× the learning per quarter at the same statistical rigour. That's the whole point.
6× the experiments. Same statistical rigor.
30-minute strategy call. We'll map which tests can run in parallel on your traffic, how soon you'd see compound lift, and what the implementation actually looks like.
- €500M+ in additional revenue across 250+ brands
- 4,000+ A/B tests · 52.6% win rate
- 10% RPU uplift guaranteed in 6 months — or we work free