Suppose an online platform wants to compare a treatment and control policy, e.g., two different matching algorithms in a ridesharing system, or two different inventory management algorithms in an online retail site. Standard randomized controlled trials are typically not feasible, since the goal is to estimate policy performance on the entire system. Instead, the typical current practice involves dynamically alternating between the two policies for fixed lengths of time, and comparing the average performance of each over the intervals in which they were run as an estimate of the treatment effect. However, this approach suffers from *temporal interference*: one algorithm alters the state of the system as seen by the second algorithm, biasing estimates of the treatment effect. Further, the simple non-adaptive nature of such designs implies they are not sample efficient. We develop a benchmark theoretical model in which to study optimal experimental design for this setting. We view testing the two policies as the problem of estimating the steady state difference in reward between two unknown Markov chains (i.e., policies). We assume estimation of the steady state reward for each chain proceeds via nonparametric maximum likelihood, and search for consistent (i.e., asymptotically unbiased) experimental designs that are efficient (i.e., asymptotically minimum variance). Characterizing such designs is equivalent to a Markov decision problem with a minimum variance objective; such problems generally do not admit tractable solutions. Remarkably, in our setting, using a novel application of classical martingale analysis of Markov chains via Poisson's equation, we characterize efficient designs via a succinct convex optimization problem. We use this characterization to propose a consistent, efficient online experimental design that adaptively samples the two Markov chains.