Aurea List Manager vs. WebEngage

Lyris LM is suited well with an organization or group that have several lists, as virtual list hosting is not represented by any other hosting company as far as I can tell.

WebEngage can easily reduce turnaround time for product and marketing teams to execute marketing campaigns for specific user segments as well as remove any dependency on internal tech teams for the development and maintenance of automation journeys. Further, A/B tests can be executed to measure the performance of message variants in real-time directly from the panel. But WebEngage lacks a robust Analytics platform. While basic metrics such as open rate and click-through rate for messages being sent can be considered for reporting, attribution is still not the strongest suit in case the marketing team relies on multiple Ad networks for acquisition. Thus, as per experience, it's better to use the automation suite offered by WebEngage with a different data analytics platform.

Incentivized

• Reports: extensive reporting on mailings and membership. Pre-built reports/charts include Mailings, Members, Server Performance, Web site, Purchases, Interest and Surveys. If Aurea ListManager doesn't have the built-in chart needed, you can easily create your own.
• Easy to analyze mailings: Completed mailing can be analyzed quickly. Options include viewing any errors that may have resulted, and checking list performance, evaluating recipient actions, ( opens, click-troughs). Details can be seen on a per-recipient basis, allowing you to see exactly what happened with each message sent.
• Discussion Lists. There are numerous list setting to customize each list.

Incentivized

• Ease in creating user journeys.
• Easy implementation of APIs.
• Good reporting dashboard and scheduling features.
• Segmentation of the users is easy.

Incentivized

• Tech support is limited for standard users, especially during non business hours even for critical errors
• Installation/upgrade is often complicated
• Version releases are too frequent

Incentivized

• Relays
• Onsite should have more options of templates.
• Backend support for better reachability of the channels.
• Cohort studies should be more customizable.

Incentivized

We will most likely not use Lyris LM for much longer. We have recently been offered to utilize a different software that better meets our needs, is current, user friendly, and has fantastic reporting capabilities.

I have not needed to utilize customer support during my use of Lyris LM.

I was not part of the implementation process.

We selected Lyris LM based on cost, the fact that we can create custom reports and the way that they handle bounced emails just to name a few, It is easy to use and we have control of who can and cannot use. With a virtual list I can create a list or take a list down at any given time without filling out a form or contact with my provider and my list looks as if it is coming from my own server @museum.com.

WebEngage's dashboard is relatively more intuitive and easy to understand. Further in terms of cost as well it is value to money as it delivers excellent ROI. The after-sales support is also better in terms of responsiveness and helps in case of issues with the execution of campaigns. The account managers also ideate and help in the optimization and creation of new user journeys.

Incentivized

• Aurea as a company is mediocre with support. The former LM staff was better informed about the product.
• LM can do almost anything you need. it's complete.
• ROI has suffered as Aurea has not updated the product, charges a considerable amount for renewals, promises with no results.

Incentivized

• Helped in lowering cost of marketing.
• Driving higher volume of Direct Sales.
• Increasing conversion rate on the website.
• Increasing lead to sale ratio.

Incentivized