Universal basic income is becoming a prominent alternative in the reform of the welfare state, yet its political support remains a puzzle. Existing research shows that particular groups are more likely to support this policy alternative than others. The low-income, unemployed, youth, and left-wing have been found to be especially supportive. Yet, current work fails to show whether these individuals actually prefer a UBI over means-tested alternatives and why this is the case. This paper fills this research gap by employing a conjoint experiment, that enables to discern the impact of policy design on support, and of uncovering which policy alternatives are preferred by different groups. Results show that material variables are not determinant in defining UBI support. However, in line with previous work, left-wing individuals do give consistently higher support rates to a UBI policy design than those on the right. Despite this, findings also unveil that the left-wing still prefer means-tested schemes over universal and unconditional ones. This suggests that previous research has over-stated support for UBI. Findings are also suggestive that other variables aside from ideology and material indicators may play an important role in determining UBI support. In this sense, future work may explore the role of perceptions in mediating support for UBI.