Whether launching a first test or scaling a sophisticated experimentation program, Optimizely Web Experimentation aims to deliver the insights needed to craft high-performing digital experiences that drive engagement, increase conversions, and accelerate growth.
N/A
UserTesting
Score 8.3 out of 10
N/A
UserTesting helps UX researchers, designers, product teams, and marketers gather actionable insights through research, testing, and feedback. With a network of real people ready to share their perspectives, UserTesting enables organizations to make customer-first decisions at scale.
Optmizely is much more performant product. We have witnessed less issues with page performance on Optimizely and have no issues with flickering. We had these issues with Maxymiser.
Best-in-Class Experiment Design compared to platforms like VWO and Convert. Optimizely offers a more polished and intuitive UI for setting up experiments. It feels purpose-built with lots of concurrent tests. Features like traffic allocation, audience targeting, and variation …
The ability to do A/B testing in Optimizely along with the associated statistical modelling and audience segmentation means it is a much better solution than using something like Google Analytics were a lot more effort is required to identify and isolate the specific data you …
I do not have any issues with AB Tasty. They are great. We went with Optimizely because they have several other products that will work together with our business model. Optimizely has grown and it now offers many other products that work with experimentation like CMS, CMP, ODP …
Optimizely is highly intuitive, allowing marketers or non-technical folks to run experiments without complicated coding. It also allows for various types of experimentation, including A/B tests, multivariate tests, and personalization. This capability will enable teams to run …
None of them have a best in class stats engine and live within an ecosystem of marketing technology products the way that Optimizely does, so the scalability of using any one of those tools is limited as compared to using Optimizely Web Experimentation.
It's a lot more, well, site stacked, it's way better than that. Adobe Target. I think the UI is easier to use on Optimizely. The one thing that I would say comparatively is our analytics talking to each other. Obviously Adobe, we use Adobe Analytics and Adobe Target, so they …
Optimizely is more user-friendly and cost-effective, ideal for experimentation-focused teams, while Adobe Target excels in advanced personalization and seamless integration within the Adobe ecosystem, making it better suited for large enterprises.
Optimizely Web Experimentation was more robust and able to handle the broad array of sites we run than VWO. It has been a great platform to easily add additional sites onto, but still providing a universal overview of all of them, making management a simple task.
we used Optimizely Web Experimentation then AB Tasty but came back to Optimizley because of its robust stat sig and features as well as all of the products we will be able to work in synchronization.
I have not evaluated any other platforms. Since 2013 or so, I've been a dedicated user of the UserTesting platform, so unfortunately I can't speak on any other platforms... I don't have experience using any of the competitors.
We evaluated a range of research tools within the UX team, including UserZoom, Lookback, Maze, Optimal Workshop, and UserTesting, and, in the end, concluded that UserTesting had the most comprehensive offer in the market. The only issue we found was that UserTesting appeared …
UserTesting is probably the most polished with the largest tester pool, fastest turnaround, and great tools for both moderated and unmoderated tests. Userlytics is a solid alternative, especially for the budget-conscious. It supports usability testing on lots of devices, and …
We use both UserTesting and Userlytics in conjunction with each other. Userlytics we find to be stronger with 1-2-1 moderated study set up due to it being really simple and intuitive for both the researcher and the participant to use. Userlytics also utilises AI analysis of …
UserTesting is very much a usability testing tool. dscout has much more robust functionality and feels like a more complete user research tool, and I prefer the quality of the panel. However, the UserTesting panel is much larger, and works well when you have lower barriers to …
UserTesting is far more advanced than Userbob. It allows a lot more flexibility in the type of testing we run and specifically how we gather respondents to this.
Most tests are unmoderated, similar to Maze, which I would suggest is the most comparable in platform. I find …
UserTesting is not a one-size-fits-all approach, but it excels in certain areas. Its user-friendly UI and speedy test launch make it excellent for companies that require immediate user feedback. Budget-conscious firms may find UserTesting's cost-effectiveness appealing, …
They all have different needs but we used the others to try and do what we wanted before we switched to UserTesting. we wanted to utilize as much of our audience as possible before but we noticed that people who had familiarity with our products would breeze through the testing.
The quality of the participants: they usually have good feedback and act like "professional" users. Which is good when we want a few insights in a short amount of time. Also, the interface is good. I miss having more features, like a good transcription tool like we have in …
As we have a bigger UX team, it helps us make user research a team sport. It helps us scale and speed up learning without creating bottlenecks which might happen if we were to use smaller tools and platforms.
In terms of overall cost and value, UserTesting stacks up well. While the platform's overall usability could be improved, and it lacks certain features that other platforms offer, we could not find a better platform for quick, reliable insights in a recent comparison.
I've used dscout, and although I prefer UserTesting.com, I will say that dscout really excels at the diary study format. It would be great if UserTesting had a tool/tools that facilitated diary studies better.
I think it can serve the whole spectrum of experiences from people who are just getting used to web experimentation. It's really easy to pick up and use. If you're more experienced then it works well because it just gets out of the way and lets you really focus on the experimentation side of things. So yeah, strongly recommend. I think it is well suited both to small businesses and large enterprises as well. I think it's got a really low barrier to entry. It's very easy to integrate on your website and get results quickly. Likewise, if you are a big business, it's incrementally adoptable, so you can start out with one component of optimizing and you can build there and start to build in things like data CMS to augment experimentation as well. So it's got a really strong a pathway to grow your MarTech platform if you're a small company or a big company.
UserTesting has been great for moderated customer interviews/usability testing as well as for unmoderated testing of messaging, imagery, prototypes and live experiences. I would say that the scope of what you want needs to be limited, as the participants are only paid so much and tests are supposed to not exceed a certain amount of time. For customer interviews, I think it can be difficult to onboard customers to UserTesting if they have never used it before. If I set up interviews, I don't even have them use the UserTesting scheduling tool, I actually set up all the interviews with the customers myself through the tool (being mindful of time zones!). When we run the meeting, they really don't even know UserTesting is involved. Might be nice for UserTesting to allow the upload/connecting to of a Zoom interview and let it do the transcription/analysis from there.
The Platform contains drag-and-drop editor options for creating variations, which ease the A/B tests process, as it does not require any coding or development resources.
Establishing it is so simple that even a non-technical person can do it perfectly.
It provides real-time results and analytics with robust dashboard access through which you can quickly analyze how different variations perform. With this, your team can easily make data-driven decisions Fastly.
The results view is dense and difficult to package easily for leadership, and when filtering by segment it's hard to read comparative outcomes without clearing or swapping filters
The organization of experiments and statuses is a cluttered list and the search is limited in use - would love to see that improve with time
There are so many other MarTech products out there, would love to see more dedicated integrations so we don't have to invest in something like Zapier or Tray to build hacky automations
Quality of participant pool - many are career testers, and many are untruthful. Since sessions are auto-scheduled if the screener is past, you often don't know until they've completed the test. Allow double screening or be more stringent in removing users from the platform.
Unfinished products - focus on making one product the best it can be before moving on to a new one. Unmoderated testing is still missing features (randomization of 3 or more prototypes, etc.)
Because it's an incredible and essential tool for my line of work as a conversion optimization specialist. Really couldn't do my job nearly as effectively without it. It's paid for itself many times over and I feel like I'm only beginning to unlock the tools potential.
I'm actually trying to get a license for my current job at my current company (recently moved to a new company). I gave it this rating because I am about to go to our executive to ask that we purchase it! I know that there will be value because we are forecasting a high volume of research next year
Optimizely Web Experimentation's visual editor is handy for non-technical or quick iterative testing. When it comes to content changes it's as easy as going into wordpress, clicking around, and then seeing your changes live--what you see is what you get. The preview and approval process for sharing built experiments is also handy for sharing experiments across teams for QA purposes or otherwise.
It can be difficult to organize our tests and go back and find information. I think the AI tools are helping and will help with this, but for now it is time consuming to sort through all of the tests and information and then synthesize it and share it with others. It just takes a lot of time.
I would rate Optimizely Web Experimentation's availability as a 10 out of 10. The software is reliable and does not experience any application errors or unplanned outages. Additionally, the customer service and technical support teams are always available to help with any issues or questions.
I would rate Optimizely Web Experimentation's performance as a 9 out of 10. Pages load quickly, reports are complete in a reasonable time frame, and the software does not slow down any other software or systems that it integrates with. Additionally, the customer service and technical support teams are always available to help with any issues or questions.
They always are quick to respond, and are so friendly and helpful. They always answer the phone right away. And [they are] always willing to not only help you with your problem, but if you need ideas they have suggestions as well.
I have contacted UserTesting's customer service online, by email, or by phone a few times, and each time, I have encountered the same professionalism and expertise. Even in person during a work event, they were there, and it was the same experience.
The tool itself is not very difficult to use so training was not very useful in my opinion. It did not also account for success events more complex than a click (which my company being ecommerce is looking to examine more than a mere click).
The implementation through the tag management system took a bit of trial and error at first, mostly due to the asynchronous nature of the TMS. We had to manipulate the implementation to assure that the Optimizely code was written to the page at the right time to allow the experiment content load in the browser without showing any of the original content first. We also needed to make some adjustments to the TMS code to get the integration with Site Catalyst timed appropriately.
From a technical perspective, the implementation was extremely smooth. Most of the change management / implementation hurdles were clearing use of the tool through our various security, legal, and information privacy teams. Once these concerns were addressed (UserTesting.com was very helpful in providing all the needed documentation), the implementation process was very simple and we were able to get going right away.
The ability to do A/B testing in Optimizely along with the associated statistical modelling and audience segmentation means it is a much better solution than using something like Google Analytics were a lot more effort is required to identify and isolate the specific data you need to confidently make changes
We evaluated a range of research tools within the UX team, including UserZoom, Lookback, Maze, Optimal Workshop, and UserTesting, and, in the end, concluded that UserTesting had the most comprehensive offer in the market. The only issue we found was that UserTesting appeared to be prohibitively expensive at first glance. In the end, however, the deal struck to get UserTesting for the UX team proved to be sufficiently competitive for us to proceed.
It's incredibly flexible and adapts well to organizations of all sizes, whether you’re running a single site or managing multiple departments and platforms. The ability to deploy experiments seamlessly across different environments is a huge plus, especially for growing businesses. While it’s highly scalable, the last point would depend on the right team leveraging its full potential.