FireText vs. WebEngage

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

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

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

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

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

Incentivized