Crownpeak DXM vs Siteimprove

• Having all the tools all in one place - you don't need a separate quality tool or asset management tool for instance
• Ease of use is great because even non-technical users can get in and add content after minimal training.
• Personalization and A/B testing built in makes a HUGE difference in how marketers build a site.

Read full review

• I like the SiteImprove shows me exactly where on the page and in the code there is a potential issue.
• It provides a justification for the concern based on best practices and provides examples for solving the problem.
• It gives me just as much information as I need and expands to show me when needed.

Read full review

• Searching for a particular asset is almost unusable, you have to know exact name of the asset you are looking for.
• Pages with many assets or dependencies take a long time to load.
• Set up a way to automatically migrate content - API or automation tools.

Read full review

• Settings / admin panel - needs updating inline with the main UI.
• Report set up - more complicated than it needs to be.

Read full review

• I'm pretty sure it raises our back-end development costs by making the development process (of creating input forms and producing outputs from the content) more complicated and painful than it needs to be.
• It helps lock our clients in to us because not a whole lot of agencies have Crownpeak expertise.
• It helps our clients not have to deal with their own IT teams, which they tend to dislike working with.

Read full review

• We used to have a lot of technical errors on our site, as some of the technical errors are hard to scan with an eye. Our rankings were not as good. Now we are a leader in content quality assurance in higher ed. We still have more areas to work on. We are not able to put a strategy for that.

Read full review