Across 13 asset types in the dataset, hit rates range from roughly 4% to 12%. The spread is wider than hooks, and the format you choose has a significant effect on your odds of producing a winner. Below is every asset type, grouped into three tiers: Winners (high hit rate), Workhorses (medium), and Underperformers (low).

Data from Motion Creative Benchmarks 2026578,750 creatives across 6,015 accounts. $1.29 billion in realized spend. Sep 2025 to Jan 2026.

This is the most counterintuitive finding in the dataset. The assets that cost the least to create (text only, product image with text, simple product shots) have higher hit rates than the assets that require studios, editors, and production budgets.

Text Only sits at the top of the leaderboard. No video. No photography. No talent. Just words on a screen. Product Image with Text is second, a product shot with a text overlay. These are assets a single person can create in 20 minutes. And they outperform professionally shot, studio-lit, meticulously edited content.

Why does this happen? Three reasons. First, speed of iteration. Text-forward assets can be created, tested, and iterated in hours. High-production assets take days or weeks. More iterations means more chances to find winning messages. The team producing 20 text variations per week learns faster than the team producing 2 polished videos per month.

Second, clarity of message. Text-forward assets force clarity. There is nowhere to hide a weak message behind beautiful footage or clever editing. If the hook is bad, the text card fails immediately. If the value proposition is unclear, there is no B-roll to distract from it. This brutal simplicity is a feature, not a limitation.

Third, first-frame information density. In a scroll-first feed, the viewer decides in milliseconds whether to stop. Text-forward assets deliver meaning in the first frame. High-production video often opens with an establishing shot, a logo, or an ambient scene. Seconds of content that carry no information. By the time the message arrives, the viewer has already scrolled past.

This does not mean high-production content is worthless. It plays a different role: credibility signaling, brand building, retargeting. But it is slower to produce, harder to iterate, and has a medium hit rate. The paradox is that many teams default to high production for testing, spending weeks on assets designed to scale before they have found a winning message to scale.

UGC (user-generated content, the person-to-camera talking head, the authentic review, the unpolished demo) has both a high hit rate and a high spend use ratio. That combination is rare. It means UGC not only produces winners more often than average. It attracts more budget when those winners emerge.

Authenticity is not a marketing buzzword in this context. It is a structural advantage. The algorithm optimises for engagement, and engagement is driven by trust. A real person holding a real product and speaking in an unscripted cadence triggers a different trust response than a branded production. The viewer's brain processes UGC as social proof (“someone like me tried this”), not as advertising.

UGC also benefits from format familiarity. Social feeds are dominated by organic content from friends and creators. UGC ads blend into this stream. High-production ads announce themselves as ads. In a feed where attention is earned by not looking like you are trying to earn it, UGC has a native advantage.

The spend use ratio is the telling detail. When a UGC ad wins, media buyers scale it aggressively. They know from experience that UGC winners tend to have longer creative lifespans. They fatigue slower than polished brand content because they feel less like advertising even after multiple exposures.

UGC Mashup (multiple UGC clips stitched together) sits in the medium tier. This is a meaningful distinction. A single authentic voice outperforms a compilation. The mashup adds social proof through volume (“many people love this”) but loses the narrative coherence of a single person's experience. When you can choose, one strong UGC creator beats three averaged together.

Carousels have the lowest hit rate in the entire dataset. And the lowest spend use ratio. When carousels win (rarely), brands do not even scale them aggressively.

The problem is structural, not creative. Carousels require active engagement in a passive consumption environment. The viewer must swipe to see the next card. Every swipe is a decision point. Every decision point is an exit opportunity. In a feed designed for effortless scrolling, asking the viewer to do something feels like friction.

Video delivers its message while you watch. Text delivers its message in a single frame. A carousel delivers its message only if you actively choose to consume each card. The cognitive load difference is significant. A viewer scrolling at speed will passively absorb a text card or the first frame of a video. They will not stop, reverse, and swipe through 5 carousel cards.

Animation sits just above carousel at the bottom of the leaderboard. Both formats share the same weakness: delayed information delivery. Animations unfold over time. Carousels unfold over swipes. In a scroll-first feed, the formats that deliver meaning fastest win.

The data suggests a clear production strategy: fast assets for testing, polished assets for scaling.

Testing phase: Use text only, product image with text, and UGC. These are cheap to create, fast to iterate, and have the highest hit rates. Run 10–20 variations per week. The goal is to find the winning message (the hook, the angle, the value proposition that resonates) before investing in production.

Scaling phase: Once you have a winning message, invest in higher-production versions. Take the winning text card and produce it as a UGC video. Take the winning UGC script and shoot a high-production version. The message stays the same. The production value increases. Now you are spending production budget on a proven concept instead of a guess.

The distinction is between assets that support fast learning and assets that require longer production cycles. Most teams invert this. They spend weeks on a polished video, launch it, and hope. The data says: find the formula first. Fast and cheap. Then dress it up.

Illustration is the hidden gem in the medium tier. It has a medium hit rate but an above-average spend use ratio. Custom illustrated assets create a distinctive visual identity that stands out in feeds dominated by photography and video. When illustration-based ads win, they tend to win big, and brands recognise this by concentrating spend. If your brand has a strong visual identity, illustration is worth testing.

The formula inside the ad matters more than the format around it. A text card with a strong curiosity hook, clear tension escalation, and compelling CTA will outperform a cinematic video with a weak open and no structural intelligence. The format is the container. The psychological formula is the engine. Optimise the engine first.