Adobe Analytics vs Mouseflow

• Custom implementation, which is not something you can easily get with Google Analytics, at least not the free version.
• Ease to build custom reports, you just pick your metrics from any report and voilà.
• Segments and metric breakdowns.

Read full review

• Session recording shows exactly what users are doing on your website. When they scroll, what they click on, when they hesitate - you see the screen as they would see it.
• Heat maps show you where users are clicking, how far down the page they scroll, where their mouse cursors spend most of their time and also which area of the page they dedicate the most attention to.
• Form analytics show you how users are interacting with your forms - which fields they click into, how long they spend in each field and also which fields are causing them to drop out (is it that unneeded phone number field?).
• Helps bolster your standard A/B testing tool so you can understand exactly how usage is differing between two scenarios, and makes it easier to settle disputes amongst colleagues about what will work best.

Read full review

• I believe that there are some limitations in the reporting, mainly in specific areas. I think there is some opportunity to enhance the capabilities in graphs and the layout of the reporting in general.
• Along with the above example, I think they could do a lot more from a visualization perspective. Being limited in the way we can present the data makes it hard sometimes to accomplish the way we envision some things to turn out.
• We have run into some glitches when trying to load a report. The page would keep trying to load and would not complete the report request. I reached out to client care and even they had an issue diagnosing the issue.

Read full review

• Session recording isn't exactly as a user would see it (e.g. it renders the HTML a user sees in your browser, rather than as they saw it). This means you might not see browser specific display quirks.
• Session recording isn't perfect, especially on responsive sites or dynamic pages. Sometimes clicks register in the wrong place and what you see on screen doesn't line up exactly with what a user would have seen, and is more noticeable on mobile devices.
• Form analytics requires a unique ID for each form. I've worked with a couple of CMS systems where this wasn't possible to achieve, so wasn't able to take advantage of this feature in all scenarios.
• Tagging feature is useful, but it would be great if Mouseflow was able to capture all sessions and then only keep those sessions which match the criteria you're searching for (e.g. people encountering a specific error or visiting a particular page). This would make it easier to diagnose more complex, multi-page problems and understand how a user triggers them without using all of your monthly sessions.

Read full review

• Adobe SiteCatalyst derives its ROI from improvements made to the website and conversion rate increases that can be attributed directly to use of SiteCatalyst.

Read full review

• Helped more user sign ups by helping identify problems on registration forms.
• Understanding exactly which content is being viewed so we can understand how to rearrange landing pages for maximum effect.
• Providing an affordable alternative to user testing so we can quickly identify issues in prototypes and get more value from actual lab testing.

Read full review