On one Australian account we run Meta ads for, Nuracom, static ads returned 10.5x and video returned 5.3x, Meta-reported, over the same window. That's one store and one stretch of time, so it doesn't prove statics always win. It does show why you run both formats and let store sales decide where the budget goes.
We run this test on every account we manage, and the answer changes how we brief the creative each month. Here's what the account showed, why it might have happened, where the finding is weak, and what I'd do with it on your store.
What the account showed
Nuracom sells an automated ceiling laundry rack: a considered purchase that most Australians had never seen, and one that needs installing. The store opened in April 2026. The ads we compared ran from late April to late July, with statics and videos across several creative angles, all pointed at the same store and the same offer.
From our accounts · Nuracom · 20 Apr to 29 Jul 2026
Results ROAS by format, Meta-reported, same account and window, 20 Apr to 29 Jul 2026, on an average order of about A$1,600. Across the whole account, Nuracom has returned 7.1x on ad spend since the ads began in April 2026.
Case study results. Outcomes vary.
So budget moved towards the statics. Video kept a share, and the second shoot was planned to produce stills as well as video, so the next round had more static concepts to test.
Why statics might have won
I can't prove the cause from one account. Two things fit what we saw.
- The message was quick to read. A good static puts the product, the price and one reason to buy in a single frame. For something people haven't seen before, a clear still can explain it faster than a video that takes a while to get to the point.
- Statics are quick to change. A new headline or a new angle can be live in days, so the winning idea gets sharpened fast. A video edit takes longer to turn around.
Where is this finding weak?
In a few places, and you should know them before you copy it.
- One account, one window. This is one store over one stretch of time. A different product, audience or season could flip it.
- Meta-reported returns. Both figures are Meta's attribution. They're good for comparing formats inside one account. They aren't sales checked against the store, and they aren't a promise of what your store will bank.
- Uneven spend. Video carried most of the spend in that window. A format running on less money often reports a higher return, because Meta shows it to the people most likely to buy first.
- The ads themselves. A strong static beating a weaker video tells you about those two ads. It says much less about statics and video in general.
So treat it as a reason to test on your own store, and a reason to question a plan that's all video by default.
When video still earns its place
Often. Video is how you show a product working, put a founder in front of people, or explain something a still can't. I front our own ads on camera for exactly that reason. On another account, video was the standout on day one:
Another account · Rick Grant's Gluten Free
The first video ad reported 35x on day one (Meta-reported, launch day, not a sustained rate). On the same brand, one static returned 6.45x: A$12.5k from A$1.9k of spend. Across June to September 2026, with the website work plus the ads, the true return on ad spend was 8.9x, counting the sales the pixel never tracked.
Case study results. Outcomes vary.
Different store, different product, and both formats did their job. Video tends to earn its keep:
- when the product needs showing: how it installs, how it moves, how it tastes;
- in retargeting, where people already know the brand and want a closer look before they buy;
- as a source of stills, because a frame from a video that sold often makes a strong static.
How should you split your creative budget?
Start even and let the store move it. Here's how we run it on a new account.
- Launch both formats against the same offer and audience, so format is the main thing that differs.
- Give each ad enough spend to buy a few orders before you judge it. A day or two of data on a considered purchase tells you very little.
- Judge on store sales where you can, and on Meta's reported purchases where you can't. Clicks and views alone don't count.
- Move budget weekly towards what's selling. Keep some money on the other format so you'd notice if it came back.
- Brief the next round from the winners. If statics are winning, ask what they say that the videos don't, then film that.
Know your floor before any of this. The break-even ROAS calculator tells you what return an ad needs before it's worth scaling, and the Meta vs Shopify guide shows how to check Meta's numbers against the store.
Questions we get about statics and video
Are static ads better than video on Meta?
Sometimes. On one of our accounts statics out-returned video over the same window, and on another the first video ad was the standout on launch day. Test both on your own store and let sales decide.
How many ads should I test at once?
Enough to give each a fair share of the budget. On a small budget that's a handful. Spread too many ads over too little money and none of them gets enough data to judge.
Do I need a big shoot to make good statics?
No. Good product photos, a clear headline and an honest offer go a long way. A proper shoot helps because one day can feed both statics and video for a good while.
Sources
Nuracom: Meta Ads Manager results by format, 20 Apr to 29 Jul 2026, and our teardown of them; the account-wide 7.1x since April 2026 is the owner-confirmed figure. Rick Grant's Gluten Free: Meta Ads Manager, the first video ad's launch day and the Scone Mix static; the 8.9x true return (June to September 2026) is store sales against ad spend, owner-confirmed. Every other return here is Meta-reported.