Does video outperform static images in Meta ads?

What does Motion's 2026 benchmark say about asset types on Meta?

Text-only and product-image-with-text creatives lead both its hit rate and spend use leaderboards, high-production assets sit in the middle, and animation and carousel come last for hit rate.

Motion analyzed 1.29 billion dollars in Meta ad spend across 578,750 creatives from 6,015 advertiser accounts. It counts a creative as a winner when it reaches at least 10 times the account's median spend and at least 500 dollars. About 5 percent made it, and hit rates by asset type run roughly 4 to 12 percent.

Motion sorts by asset type, and it never splits the data into video against image. Its list has 15 or more types, among them text only, UGC, high production, and carousel, and Motion notes that the high-production label does not separate cheap productions from expensive ones. Anyone quoting this benchmark as proof that static beats video is reading a split Motion did not make.

Motion adds two caveats. Its data window ran from September 2025 to January 2026, which takes in Black Friday and Cyber Monday, a stretch that suits text-forward and offer-heavy assets. It also says an asset type that wins in DTC Beauty may not win in B2B Technology.

Why do text-forward ads find winners faster than high-production video?

They are cheap to remake, so a team can put many more angles in front of buyers in the same week. Motion's own comparison is hours for a text asset against days or weeks for a high-production video.

When only about 5 percent of creatives become winners, the number of attempts decides a lot. A team that rewrites the headline on a product image in the morning can have new versions live by the afternoon, while the video team is still waiting on its first cut.

Motion's suggested order follows from that. A text-forward asset finds the angle, and the high-production version gets built once the angle has proven itself. In Motion's words, high production is sometimes more useful as a second stage than as a first test.

When is video worth the production cost?

Video is worth it once an angle has already earned spend in a cheaper format and you want more out of it. Before that, a video is an expensive way to test a guess.

The marketers Databox surveyed lean the other way. Of 95 respondents, 67.55 percent said video drives more ad clicks on Facebook, 26.47 percent favored images, and 5.88 percent saw no difference. Those are opinions from a survey, and they sit awkwardly next to a ranking built on spend.

Our order is plain. We run the angle as text on a plain background or on a product image, keep whichever one Meta puts spend behind, and only then pay for the video, which opens on the winning headline.

Nothing in Motion's data says the upgraded version will beat the asset it came from. We keep both running and let spend decide.

What does Facebook's full-screen video test change for ad placements?

For most accounts it changes nothing yet, since the test begins in video-heavy international markets. If it spreads, more impressions move into vertical video placements that a square-first ad library does not fill.

On July 24, 2026, Meta announced a test of a Facebook app that opens directly into full-screen video, with the Classic Feed moved to a second tab, as reported by PPC Land. The test starts later in 2026 in video-heavy international markets, and people can opt out. AdMake AI's August 7 changelog puts a possible US extension in 2027.

AdMake AI also points out that feed placements (1:1 and 4:5) and video feed placements (9:16) are bought separately. If the test wins, the impression mix shifts toward vertical video. Its advice for a square-first library is to start cutting 9:16 variants and watch the placement breakdown.

That puts pressure on the order we just described, because the cheapest test we know is text on a frame. Will a full-screen Facebook give a 9:16 frame with words on it the same chance it gives produced video?