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
Optimizely Feature Experimentation
Score 8.3 out of 10
N/A
Optimizely Feature Experimentation unites feature flagging, A/B testing, and built-in collaboration—so marketers can release, experiment, and optimize with confidence in one platform.
I still use Optimizely as it helps with project managing. We have been using that for quite sometime and we have recently started using Adobe Target Platform and are testing both of them to see which one would work the best for us. In terms of reporting Adobe Target has been …
For us, the decision was very straightforward. We chose to invest in the Adobe stack and utilize tools that are developed to integrate together and complement each other. Ex: Adobe Target 'A4T' integration within Adobe Analytics. Optimizely appears to be a great tool, but …
Google Optimize - Way better than Adobe, even the free version. It automatically work with Google Analytics, and tracks revenue out of the box. Fantastic. Use this.
Optimizely - As a paid service, this is another good option. Tracks revenue out of the box, good heatmapping, most …
Previously, we had the opportunity to work with some similar services and to be honest we had a disastrous experience because they were not what we were looking for, but since Adobe Target was implemented it has proven to be a highly professional service for our company.
In my personal opinion, Optimizely is a clear choice here while Google Optimize is for the low-budget minded decision-makers and Evergage for the COE more geared toward personalization; however, in our case we were already locked into using Target prior to my arrival. I don't …
I have used Optimizely for A/B testing. Optimizely makes it easier to set up almost any type of testing experiment. Optimizely is also strongly recommended for a limited number of users and when you want to optimize the cost. Optimizely was selected over Adobe Target since the …
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.
We have looked at Optimizely but at this point are sticking with Test & Target. We like the integration it has with our Analytics tools such as Ad Hoc and SiteCatalyst. Also, we feel that Adobe has some interesting products that we would like to dig into in the future such as …
I have used Google Analytics on my personal website but I can't compare it with Test and Target, because Google Analytics is free which will do less than what Adobe Test and Target does.
While my organization has been using Adobe Test & Target, I have had the chance to evaluate Optimizely, another tool that allows for multivariate testing with a smooth interface. The reason I like to stick with Adobe Test & Target is its ability to interface and interact with …
Optimizely Feature Experimentation
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose Optimizely Feature Experimentation
In previous companies I've used Monetate which is a similar A/B testing kind of feature experimentation engine that is very similar from my memory, but again, back to the point of these new features of the analytics engine and Opal, it kind of cuts it above Monetate from my …
I wasn’t part of the team that selected Optimizely, but its integrations with other tools were a big plus for us in making our decision. It was more expensive, however.
We have not used any other similar tools, we evaluated both Kameleoon and VWO. With the combination of price, features, and expandability, we moved forward with Optimizely Feature Experimentation.
Google optimize is great that it is an add on to an existing Analytics implementation, but only has a web version. Optimizely has the SDK so better option for testing new features
We selected Optimizely as it was easy to use/understand, had clearly defined SLAs for keeping the platform up and was regarded as resilient within the industry. We needed something at our point in our experimentation journey that could be used for Product testing at scale and …
Optimizely Feature Experimentation has similar features to Amplitude. As a matter of fact it looks like Amplitude copied Optimizely. However, Amplitude did not mimic the nomenclature issues.
When Google Optimize goes off we searched for a tool where you can be sure to get a good GA4 implementation and easy to use for IT team and product team.
Optimizely Feature Experimentation seems to have a good balance between pricing and capabilities.
In other companies, all of the feature flag controls were done locally and it got messy after a while. There was no much control on who was doing what. With Optimizely Feature Experimentation, it is clear what feature flags are enabled and which ones are not. It is easier to …
Optimizely offered both web experimentation (WSYWIG editor for nontechnical marketing folks) and Feature Experimentation. That made the decision easier to get max value across different stakeholder groups.
Optimizely FX is the only tool I've used that specifically allows for testing in the back-end. Most front end tools are great for simple tests, but there comes a time when you need to go a level deeper and that's not possible with front-end tools.
I prefer Optimizely Feature Experimentation to web experimentation. I think it's more straightforward to set up and as an engineer, I like being able to have more control from the code side.
We haven't evaluated other products. We have an in-house product that is missing a lot of features and is very behind from making the test process easier.
Instead of evolving our in-house product with limited resources, we decided to go with Optimizely Feature Experimentation …
Overall, Optimizely Feature Experimentation is an industry leader in terms of experimentation across web and mobile. For apps I would say amplitude does slightly a better job as it is tailored to that niche.
Optimizely Feature Experimentation is better for building more complex experiments than Optimizely Web. However, Optimizely Web is much easier to kickstart your experimentation program with as the learning curve is much lower, and dedicated developer resources are not always …
Optimizely Feature Experimentation is less of a point solution than LaunchDarkly, so LD has a few extra features, but Optimizely offers a much greater solution for experimentation, personalization etc.
Feature experimentation is much more robust and allows more granular control over the decisions you want to make. While Optimizely Feature Experimentation is nice and can be delivered via Optimizely Feature Experimentation's UI, its still not ideal because its brittle and can …
We recommend this application because it allows us to segment and track the traffic of our domain under an analysis of their behavior, ranging from counting the number of clicks they make on a single element to the most complete action within our page in real time.
Based on my experience with Optimizely Feature Experimentation, I can highlight several scenarios where it excels and a few where it may be less suitable. Well-suited scenarios: - Multi-Channel product launches - Complex A/B testing and feature flag management - Gradual rollout and risk mitigation Less suited scenarios: - Simple A/B tests (their Web Experimentation product is probably better for that) - Non-technical team usage -
There should be some more clarity around what makes a test significant. While this can be decided by the client themselves, some direction from the tool would be helpful.
Also, if there was an easier way to organize campaigns and search for them it would be helpful. Right now there is just a long list of campaigns and you have to rely on search to find a specific campaign. What if you don't know the name of the test?
Once you get started with your testing program, you realize that it is necessary to continue. You must keep optimizing in order to remain a vital competitor in today's marketing world. Even if you're not using Test & Target or any other user experience testing software, you ought to be performing comparison tests on your own, simply by routing your audience to different experiences and quantifying the aggregate of the results.
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.
Easy to navigate the UI. Once you know how to use it, it is very easy to run experiments. And when the experiment is setup, the SDK code variables are generated and available for developers to use immediately so they can quickly build the experiment code
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
For us, the decision was very straightforward. We chose to invest in the Adobe stack and utilize tools that are developed to integrate together and complement each other. Ex: Adobe Target 'A4T' integration within Adobe Analytics. Optimizely appears to be a great tool, but for us aligning with the Adobe suite, ensuring that future product enhancements and tools would work well together was a very important key factor in our decision
In previous companies I've used Monetate which is a similar A/B testing kind of feature experimentation engine that is very similar from my memory, but again, back to the point of these new features of the analytics engine and Opal, it kind of cuts it above Monetate from my experience. Obviously Monetate may have improved since when I lost use it, but from what I can see, yeah.
This is something we've been working to improve on, as far as how we're calculating and tracking this, but Target has had a substantial ROI on our business.
I will say specific to our efforts, we could have probably done similar work if not the same work using a different testing tool (Optimizely for example), but Target has been good for us.
We have improved various metrics throughout the course of our experimentation program with Optimizely and therefore sharing numbers is tricky. Essentially we only implement versions of the product that perform the best in terms of CVR, revenue/visitor, ATV, average order value, average basket size and so forth dependent on the north star we are trying to move with each release.