---
title: "Why GrowthBook Users Switch to Code-Native A/B Testing"
description: "GrowthBook is a strong platform — most teams that move away aren't unhappy with it, they've just outgrown owning middleware logic for a test that has a defined end date."
canonical: https://landtest.dev/blog/why-growthbook-users-switch-code-native-ab-testing
last-updated: 2026-10-30
---

# Why GrowthBook Users Switch to Code-Native A/B Testing

> GrowthBook is a strong platform — most teams that move away aren't unhappy with it, they've just outgrown owning middleware logic for a test that has a defined end date.

Teams that move off GrowthBook for landing page tests specifically aren't usually unhappy with GrowthBook — it's a genuinely strong, free, self-hostable platform. The switch tends to happen for a narrower reason: GrowthBook is built for ongoing feature flagging and experimentation across an application, and a landing page test is a temporary, self-contained thing with a start date and an end date. Using a general flagging platform for something that temporary means owning infrastructure — middleware checks, flag lifecycle, self-hosted deployment maintenance — for a problem that's smaller in scope than the tool.

This is Landtest's own content, and the framing here is intentionally about scope fit, not GrowthBook's quality — see our fuller [GrowthBook vs Landtest comparison](/blog/growthbook-vs-landtest) for the direct tradeoffs.

## The pattern behind the switch

The teams we hear from tend to describe the same sequence: they set up GrowthBook for a landing page test, it works, then the test ends and the flag check stays in `middleware.ts` because removing it means coordinating a second change against a file that's also handling auth and routing for everything else. Multiply that by a handful of tests over a year and you've got several completed experiments' worth of dead conditional logic sitting in code everyone's afraid to touch.

The second common reason is variant creation. GrowthBook is a targeting and measurement layer — it assumes variant B already exists as real code you've built. For a small team without a dedicated growth engineer, hand-building a second version of a landing page is often the actual bottleneck, not the platform.

## What switching actually changes

Moving a landing page test specifically to a code-native, PR-based workflow doesn't replace GrowthBook for anything else it's doing well — many teams keep it for backend feature flags and just stop routing landing page tests through the same middleware path. The variant becomes a branch instead of a flag check, review happens as a normal PR instead of a platform dashboard change, and ending the test means merging or deleting a branch instead of hunting down every place a flag is referenced.

## When staying on GrowthBook makes more sense

If your team is already deep in GrowthBook for flagging across the app, and landing page tests are infrequent enough that the cleanup cost never really accumulates, there's no strong reason to add a second tool. The switch matters most for teams running landing page tests often enough that flag sprawl becomes a recurring, visible cost.

## FAQ

**Is GrowthBook bad for landing page testing?**
No — it's a capable platform. The friction is scope mismatch: a general-purpose flagging platform applied to a temporary, self-contained test tends to leave more infrastructure behind than the test needed.

**Can I use GrowthBook for flags and Landtest for landing pages?**
Yes — they don't conflict. Many teams keep GrowthBook for ongoing backend feature flags and use a code-native, PR-based tool specifically for landing page experiments.

**What's the main complaint that drives teams to switch?**
Flag and middleware cleanup after the test ends — it's a manual, easy-to-defer process with GrowthBook's flag-based model, versus a single PR with a branch-based workflow.

---

Related: [GrowthBook vs Landtest](/blog/growthbook-vs-landtest) · [GrowthBook alternatives for Next.js developers](/blog/growthbook-alternatives-nextjs) · [Landtest for A/B testing](/ab-testing)