Build on Every Test.
Your Creative Effectiveness Compounds.

Meta requires manual experiment setup and shows which ad set won in each test but no explanation of WHY. Deciding Data automatically designs and launches your experiments, then explains WHY elements worked across all your tests by aggregating insights over time. Plus, our experiment designs get smarter as we learn about your brand.

Think: Meta = manual scoreboard for each game; Deciding Data = automated coach that designs plays, analyzes game film across all games, and adapts strategy systematically.

Great tools for reporting/campaign management/testing. The question is: when they show 'Ad A won,' can you answer WHY? Deciding Data explains WHY through cross-experiment aggregation: effectiveness improvement, not just reporting. Many customers use both.

You absolutely could, it's the #1 DTC hiring priority right now because teams need cross-experiment analysis. Consider the tradeoffs: A Creative Strategist ($60K-$103K/year) brings invaluable strategic thinking but is limited by human analysis capacity. Deciding Data ($6K-$12K/year) provides unlimited automated analysis of all experiments, available immediately.

Best of both: Many teams use Deciding Data to make their Creative Strategist 10x more effective. Automate the pattern analysis, let them focus on creative strategy. For teams without a strategist, we provide the analysis capability without the hire.

Two points: (1) We design experiments to test quick-iterating elements (text, crops, colors) that show results in days, not weeks. (2) Even when tests take 2-4 weeks, each adds to cumulative understanding. After 90 days, you have a rich pattern history. After 6 months, you're not 'waiting for test results'; you already know what's likely to work from patterns across your recent experiments, and our experiment designs adapt automatically to focus on high-value questions.

We're not telling your team WHAT to create, we're showing them WHY certain ads resonate through experimentation. We show patterns like 'transformation themes outperform aspiration themes 2.3x', that's strategic creative direction from testing, not pixel-pushing.

Its a lot to pay for to start from scratch every 7-21 days. Getting some help may be cheaper. The math: With 17-52 refresh cycles/year, you're guessing every time without cross-experiment insights. If you make great ads 1% more often, that's usually thousands per month saved from your creative budget. We cost $499-$999/month.

Speed and understanding aren't opposing forces. The fastest teams are the ones who know what works from past experimentation. Short-term: Apply what you've learned from previous tests. Medium-term: Quick-iterating tests on easy elements. Long-term: Peak period = strongest signal from experiments = your off-season playbook. Teams who tested in Q4 last year move faster this Q4 because they know what works.

Our free tier works for brands running 5-10 creative elements/month. Aggregating even a few tests reveals patterns you'd miss analyzing individually. Plus, effectiveness compounds. The sooner you start, the more you benefit. After 6 months, those 13-26 cycles add up to significant learning.

Immediate: Upload creative and we design and launch your first experiments within days.

Short-term (1 week): First insights from initial tests.

Medium-term (30 days): Patterns emerge from cross-test aggregation, experiment designs adapt to focus on high-value questions.

Long-term (6-12 months): 13-26 creative cycles = compounding understanding, proving ROI to leadership.

Our sweet spot is brands with 3+ marketing people, but the platform works for any DTC brand running Meta experiments. Even solo operators benefit from cross-experiment insights that they can't manually analyze. If you're producing 20+ creatives/month and spending $50K+ on Meta ads, you'll see notable value.