Using CNAME "TRY" versus "WWW2"


Hey all
We all know landing page users are fickle. If any of you have looked at videos of people using your landing pages you will see them get agitated as soon as you ask the high threat questions (on multi step forms). They scroll up and down looking for trust, try and click ‘next’ without entering anything. You get the picture.

Some people have told us that the URL is a trust thing for them. If anything looks ‘out of place’ it could be dodgy, spam, phishing etc. So I wanted to ask the community the question about whether the CNAME commonly suggested at unbounce (and probably rarely questioned) could fit into that category --> TRY.YOURDOMAIN.COM.

I have seen the CNAME "WWW2.YOURDOMAIN.COM used in the past and have wondered whether that seems less of a departure from the norm (WWW) in the layperson’s eyes, such that it could avoid any negative perceptions of trust.

Maybe I’m splitting hairs. Keen to hear your thoughts.


Hi @Ben_Carew,

The naming convention (www2,www3, etc.) actually used to denote load balancing between servers.
Nowadays, there are other ways to achieve the same effect so you are seeing less and less of these sub-domains.

I think there was a similar thread here in the community a few months back…
Could there be a benefit one way or the other? There might be but you would need an enormous amount of traffic to be able to prove it.

I always advise my clients to pick and stick with something that makes sense for their business.

Also, keep in mind that most modern browsers (mobile phones included) won’t show you the full URL by default.



Hey @Hristian you are dead right. A lot of traffic would be required and there are more important things to test.

I wasn’t aware that www2 etc. was for server testing; thought it was a naming convention for landing pages.

We mainly work in home loans so maybe a CNAME of would work. We might try it.

Thanks for the info.


Hi @Ben_Carew,

Yep, should be just fine.

Depending on the exact type of loans, targeted market and tone of the copywriting there are other alternatives like:



Thanks @Hristian we’ve changed our CNAME request to accomodate - it’s definitely contextually better.