TrustRadius
VWO is effective, but sometimes clunky
https://www.trustradius.com/ab-testingVWOUnspecified7.7173101
No photo available
November 12, 2018

VWO is effective, but sometimes clunky

Score 7 out of 101
Vetted Review
Verified User
Review Source

Overall Satisfaction with VWO

Our marketing department uses it to A/B test new website organizations, promotions, and product page layouts. It lets us make temporary changes to our website strategy, see the effects, and then decide whether or not to commit to them on the live site for our entire audience.
  • Live previews of changes as you make them
  • Direct HTML access or a simple UI, as needed
  • Google Analytics integration
  • The first-party analytics are harder to use than the Google Analytics integration and show more inconsistent results - would be nice if these were improved
  • The web editor is sometimes slow to load or reflect changes, and occasionally locks up
  • Preview screenshots seem to be spliced together, so they often show multiple instances of the site header spaced down the page
  • Significantly increased sales on several products after reorganizing their product pages or adding promotions, at essentially no extra cost
  • Ruled out proposed changes that would have damaged our ROI before we pushed them to live for all users
  • Taught us how to design our website to best suit our specific customers (albeit through trial-and-error)
We've certainly benefited from creating multiple versions of our site. We are on a cheaper plan that doesn't have enough visitors to test "hundreds" of changes, and we would refrain from testing them simultaneously to ensure that the results for each test aren't influenced by the other tests. We also don't use the built-in conversion tracking, as Google Analytics is superior for our needs, but we do appreciate the GA integration.
We've never used this feature and don't plan to.
This was very handy when I started using VWO, but as the scope of the changes we wanted to make increased, I did have to learn some HTML and CSS to fill in the gaps that the editor couldn't fill. Honestly, I appreciate this, as it's been helpful in other parts of my job, but some people might not have that kind of time and it would be nice if the editor had bit more power.
We haven't tried any alternatives.
It's the best A/B testing solution we could find for our own website and it's mostly very good at what it does. It has some usability issues on occasion, and the interface can be clunky, so it's not the easiest thing to pick-up-and-go, despite appearances; simple changes should be easy enough for a beginner to make but it takes some time with the interface to understand all its quirks.