Adobe Test and Target is an A/B, multi-variate testing platform which Adobe acquired as part of the Omniture platform in 2009. It is now part of the Adobe Marketing Cloud. It offers tight integration with Adobe analytics and content management products.
N/A
Contentful
Score 7.5 out of 10
N/A
Contentful is a cloud based CMS solution that provides the ability to manage content across multiple platforms.The editing interface allows for managing content interactively and provides developers the ability to deliver the content with the programming language and template framework of their choice.
$0
Pricing
Adobe Target
Contentful
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
Lite
$300
per month
Community
Free
Enterprise
Custom
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Adobe Target
Contentful
Free Trial
No
Yes
Free/Freemium Version
No
Yes
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
Yes
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
Optional
Additional Details
—
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Adobe Target
Contentful
Features
Adobe Target
Contentful
Testing and Experimentation
Comparison of Testing and Experimentation features of Product A and Product B
Adobe Target
8.1
18 Ratings
3% below category average
Contentful
-
Ratings
a/b experiment testing
9.318 Ratings
00 Ratings
Split URL testing
8.617 Ratings
00 Ratings
Multivariate testing
7.917 Ratings
00 Ratings
Multi-page/funnel testing
8.314 Ratings
00 Ratings
Cross-browser testing
8.39 Ratings
00 Ratings
Mobile app testing
8.57 Ratings
00 Ratings
Test significance
8.415 Ratings
00 Ratings
Visual / WYSIWYG editor
7.415 Ratings
00 Ratings
Advanced code editor
6.614 Ratings
00 Ratings
Page surveys
8.77 Ratings
00 Ratings
Visitor recordings
8.49 Ratings
00 Ratings
Preview mode
8.216 Ratings
00 Ratings
Test duration calculator
8.116 Ratings
00 Ratings
Experiment scheduler
8.415 Ratings
00 Ratings
Experiment workflow and approval
7.612 Ratings
00 Ratings
Dynamic experiment activation
7.412 Ratings
00 Ratings
Client-side tests
8.115 Ratings
00 Ratings
Server-side tests
7.510 Ratings
00 Ratings
Mutually exclusive tests
7.716 Ratings
00 Ratings
Audience Segmentation & Targeting
Comparison of Audience Segmentation & Targeting features of Product A and Product B
Adobe Target
8.2
18 Ratings
7% below category average
Contentful
-
Ratings
Standard visitor segmentation
8.018 Ratings
00 Ratings
Behavioral visitor segmentation
7.517 Ratings
00 Ratings
Traffic allocation control
8.418 Ratings
00 Ratings
Website personalization
9.216 Ratings
00 Ratings
Results and Analysis
Comparison of Results and Analysis features of Product A and Product B
Adobe Target
8.1
18 Ratings
6% below category average
Contentful
-
Ratings
Heatmap tool
7.88 Ratings
00 Ratings
Click analytics
7.615 Ratings
00 Ratings
Scroll maps
8.88 Ratings
00 Ratings
Form fill analysis
8.28 Ratings
00 Ratings
Conversion tracking
8.615 Ratings
00 Ratings
Goal tracking
8.117 Ratings
00 Ratings
Test reporting
8.118 Ratings
00 Ratings
Results segmentation
8.316 Ratings
00 Ratings
CSV export
8.215 Ratings
00 Ratings
Experiments results dashboard
7.318 Ratings
00 Ratings
Security
Comparison of Security features of Product A and Product B
Adobe Target
-
Ratings
Contentful
8.5
10 Ratings
4% above category average
Role-based user permissions
00 Ratings
8.510 Ratings
Platform & Infrastructure
Comparison of Platform & Infrastructure features of Product A and Product B
Adobe Target
-
Ratings
Contentful
9.5
12 Ratings
20% above category average
API
00 Ratings
9.311 Ratings
Internationalization / multi-language
00 Ratings
9.79 Ratings
Web Content Creation
Comparison of Web Content Creation features of Product A and Product B
Adobe Target
-
Ratings
Contentful
7.8
13 Ratings
0% above category average
WYSIWYG editor
00 Ratings
7.34 Ratings
Code quality / cleanliness
00 Ratings
9.58 Ratings
Admin section
00 Ratings
9.311 Ratings
Page templates
00 Ratings
7.64 Ratings
Library of website themes
00 Ratings
7.52 Ratings
Mobile optimization / responsive design
00 Ratings
4.57 Ratings
Publishing workflow
00 Ratings
9.312 Ratings
Form generator
00 Ratings
7.01 Ratings
Web Content Management
Comparison of Web Content Management features of Product A and Product B
If you're using the Adobe stack and tools to power your website, Target is a great solution to implement. I've utilized Target within two organizations, one running on Adobe Experience Manager (AEM), and the other on Adobe Magento. I don't see how companies could harness the full capacity of Target without also having Adobe Analytics integrated. This is their 'secret sauce' and might not be a good solution for companies who are invested in Google Analytics 360. Integration was straightforward but did require support from the Adobe team to implement successfully. While Target is a great tool for digital teams to support, you'll need your tech team aligned and available to support implementation.
It's a great all rounder for content projects. It's easy in the basics and powerful in the complex, data heavy scenarios. Extending the platform is straightforward and the SDK gives you everything you need. If you have many many varying content types , it gets expensive and perhaps not the best choice .
This application gives us an incredible integration with Adobe Analytics that allows its operation to be the best and determine the performance of our website.
It offers us an analysis based on user behavior and a web page customization option to adapt and meet the needs of those users.
This is something a lot of testing tools struggle with, but I think the WYSIWYG ("What you see is what you get") editor - or Visual Experience Composer (VEC) in Adobe terminology - could definitely use some work. It's a struggle to execute many tests beyond simple copy, color, placement changes, and even the features that do exist are often clunky if not altogether broken.
The interface itself can be a bit counterintuitive in certain parts. If you are familiar with other tools, it's likely middle of the road in this respect; think much easier to understand than Monetate for instance, but a far cry from the simplicity of an Optimizely.
It can be a bit buggy from time to time. The worst example is the frequency at which the tool will fail to save due to an error, but not inform you of this until you try to save, at which point your only option is to log out, log back in, and make all of your updates once again. It can become an extreme pain point at times, and I personally have just gotten into the habit of saving every couple of minutes to avoid a massive loss of productivity.
Contentful uses "references" to allow you to build very modular content. If I have a "slider" content type, I can create a "slide" content type which references a "button" content type, and so forth. This works well, but I occasionally wish there was a better solution for one-off content, like a settings page. Currently, this is done for creating an entire content type called "settings" with a single entry. Not a big deal, but not ideal, either.
There are a few quirks with GatsbyJS integration, etc, but these issues are being fixed and improved upon very quickly.
A minor gripe, but Contentful does not have a way to organize fields within an entry. Entries with many fields are somewhat tiresome to scroll through.
We have a team of people trained on how to use the application and it integrates well with the other Adobe products we use. Our future roadmap of testing will require some complex scenarios which we hope Target will be able to accomplish
The recent UI update is a complete mess. It is difficult to navigate and find features that previously existed. The reactiveness of the page depending on window size is also ridiculous and it is absurd that depending on how large your window is, entire columns of functions will disappear with no indication that they are missing. The usability of the tool has fallen off a cliff.
It is a very easy to use and configure application. I find that it is on the user to manage the content after the models have been created, yet I still do not encounter issues finding or creating new components for our site. It is easy to set up and easy to navigate.
On several occasions, we have had the need to ask for help from the Adobe Target support team, and I must say that they have provided us with an excellent experience, as they take care of solving the problems quickly and with high precision
The instructor that came to train us was awesome and this training was very useful. I would recommend it for anyone who is going to be using this software. I only mark it lower because it is an added expense to an already expensive product, and a lot of the training covered the "Target" portion of the software (which again, we didn't use)
The training was very easy to understand, however it would have been more useful to my development team than me. It was also primarily over-the-phone, which is never as easy to follow as in-person. We ended up scheduling and paying for an in-person training session to supplement the online/phone training because it wasn't helpful enough.
Implement using a global mBox on the page so you can change any and everything over the traditional method. Traditional method is good if you do not have technical web dev resources, do not know Javascript/jQuery, or you have money to blow on mBox calls. Global deployment reduces mBox calls and allows you to touch many parts of the page easily. A lot more customizable
We seriously considered another software but because we use so many other Adobe products this made the most sense for us. If you are not dependent on other Adobe software and are a smaller company, in my opinion, Target may not be the best fit.
Easy to use and much more organized as a single platform versus multi. The layout is clean and easy to read and we don’t have to worry about certain users safe guarding data or content then losing it when they leave the company. It’s a one stop shop for imagery
We have been able to run specific A/B tests that have shown an increase in conversion, which in turn has led to very large banked sales numbers for the year.
We have been able to prove that using and automated Merchandising process did not decrease conversion. This allowed us to greatly increase efficiency by opening up resource time.
Contentful has saved us valuable development time that was previously spent doing deploys for minor content updates.
Contentful has helped us maintain consistent documentation, reducing time needed to review for consistency.
Can't say we've really experienced any negative ROI impacts from using Contentful, but we've run into some limitations in adding too many content models and the next pricing tier is substantially more expensive.