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
Statsig
Score 8.9 out of 10
N/A
Statsig is a feature management with feature flags, pulse, holdouts, from the company of the same name in Bellevue.
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 …
Statsig is easier to use and has more tools for analysis, though we were working with the open source version of Flagsmith, merely to handle feature flags, and using Heap and homegrown tools for manual analysis, so the Cloud version may be different
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.
Statsig is well suited for running straightforward a/b tests on frontend deployments. We've actually used it to log events on our backend and used the HTTP API to integrate with tools like Hubspot to evaluate email campaigns
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.
For the most part it is pretty easy to use. - There are some quirks with the javascript SDK (getExperiment().getValue?). - The Events vs. Metrics design pattern is complex, and creating new Metrics from Events can be frustrating if you are trying to use event metadata - It's really frustrating not to be able to link Static IDs (before a user signs up) to User IDs, in order to follow users all the way through onboarding, or to log events that occur for signed in users when you are exposing the experiment to users before they've signed up
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
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.