Adobe Test and Target is an A/B, multi-variate testing platform which Adobe acquired as part of the Omniture platform in 2009. It is now part of the Adobe Marketing Cloud. It offers tight integration with Adobe analytics and content management products.
N/A
Optimizely Web Experimentation
Score 8.7 out of 10
N/A
Optimizely Web Experimentation empowers teams to conduct experiments (without having to rely on developer resources) in order to test various user interactions, make website changes backed by data, and personalize customer experiences.
For us, the decision was very straightforward. We chose to invest in the Adobe stack and utilize tools that are developed to integrate together and complement each other. Ex: Adobe Target 'A4T' integration within Adobe Analytics. Optimizely appears to be a great tool, but …
In my personal opinion, Optimizely is a clear choice here while Google Optimize is for the low-budget minded decision-makers and Evergage for the COE more geared toward personalization; however, in our case we were already locked into using Target prior to my arrival. I don't …
Previously, we had the opportunity to work with some similar services and to be honest we had a disastrous experience because they were not what we were looking for, but since Adobe Target was implemented it has proven to be a highly professional service for our company.
I have used Optimizely for A/B testing. Optimizely makes it easier to set up almost any type of testing experiment. Optimizely is also strongly recommended for a limited number of users and when you want to optimize the cost. Optimizely was selected over Adobe Target since the …
We seriously considered another software but because we use so many other Adobe products this made the most sense for us. If you are not dependent on other Adobe software and are a smaller company, in my opinion, Target may not be the best fit.
We have looked at Optimizely but at this point are sticking with Test & Target. We like the integration it has with our Analytics tools such as Ad Hoc and SiteCatalyst. Also, we feel that Adobe has some interesting products that we would like to dig into in the future such as …
Verified User
Employee
Chose Adobe Target
While my organization has been using Adobe Test & Target, I have had the chance to evaluate Optimizely, another tool that allows for multivariate testing with a smooth interface. The reason I like to stick with Adobe Test & Target is its ability to interface and interact with …
Ease of use was important to us to ensure a quick adaption throughout the organization. The interface of VWO was a very busy and somewhat harder to grasp.
Ease of implementation was important to us. Adobe Test and Target relies heavily on custom javascript and specific …
Test and Target is more feature rich, but it's setup and maintenance costs (in actual $ and labor) is so intensive it isn't a good option for us. We chose Optimizely for it's easy/quick setup and affordable price point.
We were a former Adobe Test and Target client and felt that the tool was not keeping up with the competition. Optimizely greatly streamlined the process of setting up and running A/B tests, making results easy to understand, and provided superior customer service. I understand T…
Maxymiser - The statistical significance engine used by Optimizely helps to reduce the detection of false positives. These were noticed on many occasions within the maxymiser tool.
Adobe Target, VWO and Google Optimize are often the three that come up against Optimizely from an agency recommendation perspective. The first, because Adobe Target is a comparable enterprise optimization platform; the second, because it's a paid but has a much more achievable …
I have used tools in various spaces that have all the flashy bells and whistles, and is, but lacks some basic features - Optimizely isn't this. While other tools, such as Adobe Target, Evergage, Dynamic Yield, Google Optimize, or even Taplytics may make more sense for your …
Optimizely Web Experimentation and Adobe Target are both powerful tools for website optimization and experimentation, but they differ in some key ways. Here's a comparison of some of the most important features of each platform:A/B testing: Both Optimizely and Adobe Target …
Optimizely Web Experimentation stacks up favorably against Adobe Target, Kameleoon, and Oracle CX Marketing in terms of ease of use, customer service, and features. It is easy to set up and execute experiments, the customer service team is always quick to respond to any …
We use AEM so Adobe Target would be a natural choice, it integrates naturally with the Experience Fragments and all the content we already hold there. However - with extensions - we've been able to unlock a similar workflow to be able to seamlessly test. Optimizely has the …
Google Optimize was much less flexible for our program needs and requires Google Analytics for analysis and metrics tracking. Optimizely Web Experimentation lets you build any number of metrics which can be much more complex than standard GA goals. Optimizely Web …
> Adobe's pretty cool for its recomentation / AI / ML engine > VWO's wysiwyg is pretty solid and the heatmapping is nice > abtasty's consent features are pretty cool to launch patch and AB Test Consent Rate > Monetate & Dynamic Yield's pre-built personalization features help …
Analytics are vastly superior, platform UI is by far the easiest to use, and capabilities are best in class. If your organization has any budget for a web experimentation tool, it should be using Optimizely Web Experimentation.
unbounce's Visual Editor is what I'd expect out of Optimizely Web Experimentation, but I believe it's missing. Otherwise, Optimizely Web Experimentation is better.
I think that Optimizely is more user-friendly than Adobe and Monetate, for example - Adobe is really suited for people with deep pockets and a distinct technical acumen that may not be suitable for a small business. Montetate is not user-friendly - even for seasoned marketers. …
Optimizely's community is definitely more active, and resourceful. The platform is also more user-friendly so that members of other departments can review collected data, or results. Optimizely was chosen due to its efficiency, simplicity, and pricing. It was also great to read …
These competitors are great examples of what is below and above Optimizley, in terms of price and capability. Adobe Test & Target is going to have a lot more features and capabilities, and, as you probably have guessed, it is much, much less affordable. Google Content …
If you're using the Adobe stack and tools to power your website, Target is a great solution to implement. I've utilized Target within two organizations, one running on Adobe Experience Manager (AEM), and the other on Adobe Magento. I don't see how companies could harness the full capacity of Target without also having Adobe Analytics integrated. This is their 'secret sauce' and might not be a good solution for companies who are invested in Google Analytics 360. Integration was straightforward but did require support from the Adobe team to implement successfully. While Target is a great tool for digital teams to support, you'll need your tech team aligned and available to support implementation.
Optimizely Web Experimentation has a higher sticker price than some of its competitors. While this is true, you're buying an industry leader with tremendous experience in working with clients for years. Initially, with our Conversion Rate Optimization program, we were wow'd and cajoled into trying the hot bleeding edge features that some newer companies might call AI/algorithmic models-- these are otherwise known as Multi-Armed Bandit campaigns, which isn't a new thing. That being said, contracting and fully utilizing Optimizely Web Experimentation's suite of features, professional services, and more may be cost prohibitive for smaller companies. Once a CRO program reaches maturity Optimizely Web Experimentation can scale for larger teams where more advanced can utilize server side tests exclusively for seamless experimentation.
This application gives us an incredible integration with Adobe Analytics that allows its operation to be the best and determine the performance of our website.
It offers us an analysis based on user behavior and a web page customization option to adapt and meet the needs of those users.
This is something a lot of testing tools struggle with, but I think the WYSIWYG ("What you see is what you get") editor - or Visual Experience Composer (VEC) in Adobe terminology - could definitely use some work. It's a struggle to execute many tests beyond simple copy, color, placement changes, and even the features that do exist are often clunky if not altogether broken.
The interface itself can be a bit counterintuitive in certain parts. If you are familiar with other tools, it's likely middle of the road in this respect; think much easier to understand than Monetate for instance, but a far cry from the simplicity of an Optimizely.
It can be a bit buggy from time to time. The worst example is the frequency at which the tool will fail to save due to an error, but not inform you of this until you try to save, at which point your only option is to log out, log back in, and make all of your updates once again. It can become an extreme pain point at times, and I personally have just gotten into the habit of saving every couple of minutes to avoid a massive loss of productivity.
We have a team of people trained on how to use the application and it integrates well with the other Adobe products we use. Our future roadmap of testing will require some complex scenarios which we hope Target will be able to accomplish
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.
Usability is mostly great. I like the WYSIWYG functionality and adding in real code is simple as well. It's easy to target specific pages or audiences. I've knocked a couple of points off because of how difficult it is to set up URL redirect experiments, confusion around creating pages, and lack of data that can be further analyzed.
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.
On several occasions, we have had the need to ask for help from the Adobe Target support team, and I must say that they have provided us with an excellent experience, as they take care of solving the problems quickly and with high precision
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.
The instructor that came to train us was awesome and this training was very useful. I would recommend it for anyone who is going to be using this software. I only mark it lower because it is an added expense to an already expensive product, and a lot of the training covered the "Target" portion of the software (which again, we didn't use)
The training was very easy to understand, however it would have been more useful to my development team than me. It was also primarily over-the-phone, which is never as easy to follow as in-person. We ended up scheduling and paying for an in-person training session to supplement the online/phone training because it wasn't helpful enough.
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).
Implement using a global mBox on the page so you can change any and everything over the traditional method. Traditional method is good if you do not have technical web dev resources, do not know Javascript/jQuery, or you have money to blow on mBox calls. Global deployment reduces mBox calls and allows you to touch many parts of the page easily. A lot more customizable
In retrospect: - I think I should have stressed more demo's / workshopping with the Optimizely team at the start. I felt too confident during demo stages, and when came time to actually start, I was a bit lost. (The answer is likely I should have had them on-hand for our first install.. they offered but I thought I was OK.) - Really getting an understanding / asking them prior to install of how to make it really work for checkout pages / one that uses dynamic content or user interaction to determine what the UI does. Could have saved some time by addressing this at the beginning, as some things we needed to create on our site for Optimizely to "use" as a trigger for the variation test. - Having a number of planned/hoped-for tests already in-hand before working with Optimizely team. Sharing those thoughts with them would likely have started conversations on additional things we needed to do to make them work (rather than figuring that out during the actual builds). Since I had development time available, I could have added more things to the baseline installation since my developers were already "looking under the hood" of the site.
We seriously considered another software but because we use so many other Adobe products this made the most sense for us. If you are not dependent on other Adobe software and are a smaller company, in my opinion, Target may not be the best fit.
Overall, the tools we compared against were great, but we went with Optimizely because it has all the features we needed and has the market leadership that gave us trust we would be successful in our experimentation efforts.
This rating for Optimizely Web Experimentation is rooted in the more complicated builds that are not feasible with just Java and CSS. These require the featured experimentation add on, therefore the base level platform I am giving a lower rating. We have had issues with overly complex test builds, because we can only utilize Java and CSS to make the elements
We have been able to run specific A/B tests that have shown an increase in conversion, which in turn has led to very large banked sales numbers for the year.
We have been able to prove that using and automated Merchandising process did not decrease conversion. This allowed us to greatly increase efficiency by opening up resource time.
Customer retention: We've reduced subscription service client churn by 20%+ using optimized unsubscribe flows.
Risk mitigation: Testing into full site redesigns has saved clients millions of dollars.
Feature prioritization: Identifying what painted door changes add value has allowed developers to focus on changes that add hundreds of thousands or even millions to the bottom line.