Short answer: No. A simple mark may be easier to process at first encounter, but detail can become useful as people encounter a mark repeatedly. The better question is what the mark must communicate, how often the audience will see it, and which recognition measure matters to the business.
In two experiments reported by van Grinsven and Das, one group of 68 people saw unfamiliar logos after one or four exposures; another study with 164 people tested familiar logos associated with more and less established brands. In the first test, recognition speed improved with exposure for complex marks; the overall complexity-by-exposure interaction was only marginally significant, as the author's dissertation reports. The second comparison does not prove that time alone caused the difference: familiar real brands differ in more ways than logo complexity. The result challenges “simpler always wins”; it does not give a formula for the ideal number of shapes.
An earlier analysis of 195 logos by Henderson and Cote calibrated 13 design characteristics against different communication objectives. Its high-recognition group was natural and harmonious, with moderate elaboration. That research also distinguishes recognition from a low-investment feeling of familiarity and from a professional image. A buyer should specify which outcome they need before scoring concepts.
Run two recognition checks
For a new brand, present several candidate marks to people who have not seen the project. Keep the brand name and exposure time consistent. After a short distraction, ask them to pick the mark from plausible alternatives and name the brand, then record confusions. This is a first-encounter check; do not treat stated preference as memory.
For a brand that will be encountered repeatedly, show the candidate in a small set of realistic contexts over more than one exposure, then repeat the recognition task. Keep the number of encounters equal across concepts. The point is to see whether an initially demanding mark becomes more distinguishable with familiarity, not to simulate years of brand-building in an afternoon.
Consider two proposals for a new cultural venue: a plain geometric symbol and a detailed mark referencing its building. In the first check, the geometric symbol may be picked faster, yet confused with other venues. After several equal exposures, the detailed mark may become easier to identify and communicate a useful association. Conversely, if viewers remember the building shape but attach it to the wrong name, the extra detail has not solved the brand's task. Record both correct selection and correct attribution; a faster answer alone is an incomplete decision rule.
Finally, test whether the mark remains legible at its real sizes. That is a different question. A mark could be memorable at poster size but lose its name or detail in an app icon. ARCHV's separate small-format logo test covers that reproduction constraint. Choose or revise the design using the combined evidence: recognition, meaning, legibility, and the identity system it must support. No single study can predict a new brand's market outcome.