Chartbeat delivers real-time analytics, insights, and transformative tools for content teams around the world, to help improve audience engagement, inform editorial decisions, and increase loyalty.
N/A
Siteimprove
Score 9.1 out of 10
N/A
The Siteimprove platform offers tools used to create digital experiences optimized for quality, accessibility, analytics, and SEO. Sitemprove offers content insights and recommendations in a prioritized list to improve the impact of changes. It is available through three solution packages (Inclusivity, Content Experience, and Marketing Performance).
N/A
Pricing
Chartbeat
Siteimprove
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Chartbeat
Siteimprove
Free Trial
Yes
Yes
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
Chartbeat pricing is based on monthly site page views. Discounts are applied to multi-year contracts. The Basic Plan includes the Real-time Dashboard, Historical Dashboard, Heads Up Display, Reports, Big Board, iOS and Android app, and Real-time API endpoints.
The Plus Plan includes all of the Basic Plan features, plus ONE of the following Premium features: Headline Testing, Advanced Queries, or Multi-Site View.
The Premium Plan includes all of the Basic Plan features, plus ALL Premium features: Headline Testing, Advanced Queries, Multi-Site View, and enterprise-level support and custom trainings.
We use Chartbeat in conjuction with these tools. Chartbeat is forward facing and we encourage everyone in the newsroom to use it. It provides the best live view, but lacks depth needed for more longer-term trend reporting and analysis. Domo allows much more advanced data …
Google Analytics 360 had problems, but after it was discontinued, Google Analytics became a shell of its former self. An added benefit of Chartbeat is that it's more "live" (looking at live concurrents rather than in the past however many minutes) and tells you how that number …
We use Chartbeat for real-time evaluation and Adobe Analytics for longer-term performance reporting. Chartbeat is easier to use overall, particularly for content producers. Researchers tend to rely on Adobe Analytics for their reports. We have found that we need to keep using …
Google Analytics has gradually become much more difficult to use, and much slower in its realtime reporting. It was the changes that came in with Google Analytics 4 that gave us the final push to work with Chartbeat - a product some of us were already familiar with from …
Omnilytics is more robust, detailed, and catered for an intermediate media user, while I think Chartbeat is a more user-friendly and beginner-oriented piece of technology. That being said, there is an impressive amount of lift for Chartbeat, and it's evident that simplicity is …
I used Parse.ly before I used Chartbeat. We shifted away from Parse.ly because it's social standing wasn't as good, it was mostly for site readership and we needed a bigger concentration on social media that Parse.ly couldn't provide. It's not listed, but we now use Social Flow …
Chartbeat stands out in terms of real-time tracking and information from which to manage homepages, I found this better than Smart Octo's equivalent. However, the ability to quickly explore past data does not go as deep as Google Analytics.
Chartbeat is better than GA when it comes to ease of use and immediacy. The homepage layover that Chartbeat offers is unique from what I've seen and gives me an instant knowledge of what's working on my site and how to best arrange it.
Other products like Chartbeat that I've used are Parse.ly, GA, and Omniture. Parse.ly is the only tool, in my opinion, that offers more real-time data, but the interface is lacking and isn't as intuitive as Chartbeat.
Chartbeat is certainly better at visualizing content and segmenting the data all on one screen. We can filter by section, author, channel and more without leaving the main dashboard page. Combining properties together in roll up groups is another key feature. We're able to …
In terms of WCAG, accessiBE is the more value oriented product with easy to understand results, less false positives, better WCAG results. That said, it's also a single focused tool, whereas Siteimprove is geared towards overarching web governance. There are simply no other …
Siteimprove is superior to Ahrefs due to it's clean and intuitive user interface and seamless navigation. Ahrefs contains a more robuts data set but the information is often difficult to locate and take action on because of how it's displayed to users. Siteimprove has less data …
I prefer Siteimprove to all above for their easy to view and use dashboards. The visual aspect of SiteImprove makes it easy to pick up for everyone - as we have experienced in our team. We've only had 1 training session on it, as opposed to the multiple for the other things we …
Siteimprove provides richer features when it comes to how granular you can define policies and metrics for search engine optimization and content relevance. It is also much easier to set up and maintain the sites that you want to administer. However, pricing wise is more costly …
Compared to any other tool I've used, Siteimprove is the best. Many tasks that I used to do manually have become more accessible and faster due to it. The visual scanning of issues is what makes it the best. It's simple to find problems, fix them, and track how far we've come. …
I do like Siteimprove, but we are moving on to Monsido purely for costs. Monsido costs a third less than Siteimprove and offers the same functionality.
We have used or tested other tools that get installed on a computer or that are hosted online, but none of them offer the features that come with Siteimprove. TotalValidator Pro will check your site for accessibility issues, but it is a manual check and there is no historical …
It is well suited to keeping me toward a specified goal, and gives me concrete numbers and gives me an idea of what we need to do to meet our goals. It's less appropriate if you want something more than pageviews, and doesn't really do a lot for video views.
Simple, easy-to-deploy accessibility that automatically scans, remediates and provides proof of compliance once the process is complete. It is ideal for people who want to make their website much more accessible and provide their users with an intuitive adjustable interface.
User-friendly customisable dashboards, easy to make a dashboard from a template, or create your own, and add in whichever 'widgets' are relevant for what you are looking at
Flagging words to review, allowing users to check and confirm if the word is 'accepted' or is a misspelling
Source of traffic needs improvement. Search and social make sense, but "internal" and "links" is a grey area. It would be helpful to define those with an organization and provide an information icon so users can easily remember what each of those buckets is tracking.
More ways to customize the real-time board. For example, with video content, that's great that I can see a user has started a video, but what is the completion rate, was that only on O&O or can that track Facebook, too?
Would like to see demo (age) information included as a way to slice the data so I can see what's working with my older and younger demo.
I don't like that there are different navigation paths to go from point A to point B. When I want to navigate to a specific place, I have more than one way to get there, which means I have to make a decision about how I want to there and I'd rather the designer make that design based on what would be most efficient for me.
I gave Chartbeat a 5 for a renewal rating, because, while it delivers clear and understandable content, Google Analytics also provides many of the same features for free. For a small to medium website, I believe it would be more cost effective to use Google Analytics. A website with a high amount of traffic, however, could merit spending the money on Chartbeat to maximize their potential.
Chartbeat is really pretty straightforward. The only things that may cause confusion are the string of sidebar features and tools at the left of the screen. I mostly use the big leader board in real-time and the historical feature (looking at the monthly or weekly performance of my team's content) and then generate reports automatically from there.
Tool has undergone numerous changes, both to function and UX/CX. Makes it less than user friendly at times. But on the other hand, that does indicate a willingness to improve the product in a continual manner - which they've done nearly year after year - but it's always a case of who moved my cheese with each new iteration.
I have had limited experience of support for Chartbeat but whenever I have needed help it has been there. Recently there was an issue of seeing different forms of data in real time - app and otherwise effectively, and the issue was being clearly dealt with and communicated back to us.
I've used support often and it has been responsive, thorough and considerate of our needs. I can get a tech right away, they understand the issue, and work with us to resolve it. Often the problem is with the site we are trying to scan, sometimes it is with their product. I appreciate that they go beyond support into continually helping us implement SiteImprove in more places with 3rd party integration.
Google Analytics has gradually become much more difficult to use, and much slower in its realtime reporting. It was the changes that came in with Google Analytics 4 that gave us the final push to work with Chartbeat - a product some of us were already familiar with from previous jobs. Things are just much harder to find in GA, and when time is always tight you can't afford to spend a long time looking for particular data - it should be quick and easy to locate
Siteimprove provides richer features when it comes to how granular you can define policies and metrics for search engine optimization and content relevance. It is also much easier to set up and maintain the sites that you want to administer. However, pricing wise is more costly which can be a constraint for smaller organizations.