Short paywall with a review and a results stat: +72% install-to-trial
Test run byVahe BaghdasaryanTangent (now part of Superwall)
Commentary byLiftArchiveOur analysis, not theirsA food and diet app replaced its long onboarding paywall with a short one, and install-to-trial went up 72%.
Vahe Baghdasaryan's agency, Paywalls.Design, ran the redesign, and the result was published on the RevenueCat blog.
It was a bundle of changes, so the lift can't be pinned on the review, the stat or the toggle alone.
- Install-to-trial conversion: +72%. Many more new installs started a trial on the onboarding paywall.
- Revenue, ARPU and trial-to-paid figures were not shared for this test.
- Sample size, test length and confidence were not shared.
- Several changes shipped together, so the lift belongs to the redesign as a whole.
The change
Long paywall with CEO note and FAQ versus a short one led by a review and a stat
Simplified mockup drawn by LiftArchive from the shared screenshots.
Control
A long onboarding paywall with three plan boxes, a feature list, a note from the CEO and an FAQ. A 7-day free trial was applied to everyone, and a 90% improvement stat sat deep in the layout.
Variant
A short paywall headed "Choose Your Plan", with a free-trial toggle, a 5-star App Store review and the stat "86% of users improved their diet". Monthly and yearly sat side by side, with "SAVE 40%" and a monthly breakdown of $2.49 on yearly, plus a "Continue" button.
Why it likely won
Our reading of the result, not the practitioner's claim.
- Cutting the CEO note, FAQ and long feature list left less to read before the button.
- Leading with a real review and a concrete outcome stat gave people a reason to trust the app before seeing prices.
- The old paywall repeated the same $6.99 monthly price across boxes; a clear monthly-versus-yearly comparison with a savings label made the choice easier.
- The toggle let people who were ready to pay skip the trial.
Caveats: Bundled redesign with no sample size or duration shared, reported by the agency that designed it. Only install-to-trial was given, and Apple now rejects free-trial toggles on iOS.
Who ran it
Vahe Baghdasaryan ran this test. Source: RevenueCat blog. The numbers are theirs; the summary and commentary on this page are ours.
How to run this test on your app
- Hypothesis
- If we replace a long onboarding paywall with a short one that leads with a real review and an outcome stat, then install-to-trial will rise because users see proof and a clear choice before they lose interest.
- Primary metric
- Install-to-trial conversion
- Guardrails
- Trial-to-paid conversion
- Yearly plan share
- Refund rate
- Who should test it
- Apps whose onboarding already explains the value well, so the paywall can stay short. It may not fit apps where the paywall is the first place users learn what they get. Leave the toggle out on iOS.
Questions
Does a short paywall always beat a long one?
No. It worked here because onboarding had already sold the app, so the paywall only needed to close the deal.
Apps that rely on the paywall to explain value may need the longer version.
What kind of stat works on a paywall?
A concrete outcome for users, like the share who improved their diet, placed near the top where people see it.
A similar stat buried lower on the old paywall did less work.
Is install-to-trial enough to call a winner?
It's a good start, but check trial-to-paid and refunds on a matured cohort before rolling out. Only install-to-trial was shared for this test.
Similar tests
Kovalee