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
ConfigCat
Score 9.1 out of 10
N/A
ConfigCat allows the user to launch new features and change software configuration without (re)deploying code. ConfigCat SDKs enable easy integration with any web, mobile or backend applications. The ConfigCat website enables non-developers too to switch ON/OFF application features or change software configuration. This way the user can decouple feature launches and configuration from code deployment.
$0
per month
Pricing
Adobe Target
ConfigCat
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
Free
$0.00
per month
Professional
$49.00
per month
Unlimited
$199.00
per month
Dedicated on-premise infra
$1499.00
per month
Dedicated hosted infra
$1499.00
per month
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Adobe Target
ConfigCat
Free Trial
No
Yes
Free/Freemium Version
No
Yes
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
—
Fair pricing policy: All features available in all plans, even in Free. Simple and predictable prices. No hidden fees. We don't charge for team size. We don't charge for MAUs (monthly active users). Our plans only differ in limitations.
I still use Optimizely as it helps with project managing. We have been using that for quite sometime and we have recently started using Adobe Target Platform and are testing both of them to see which one would work the best for us. In terms of reporting Adobe Target has been …
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 …
Google Optimize - Way better than Adobe, even the free version. It automatically work with Google Analytics, and tracks revenue out of the box. Fantastic. Use this.
Optimizely - As a paid service, this is another good option. Tracks revenue out of the box, good heatmapping, most …
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.
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 …
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 …
I have used Google Analytics on my personal website but I can't compare it with Test and Target, because Google Analytics is free which will do less than what Adobe Test and Target does.
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 …
ConfigCat
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose ConfigCat
CC offers a little bit more valuable features to us as LD but to a considerably lower price. CC support is also far superior in both quality and speed. LD has more features we don't need but still would havd to pay for. CC has a very suitable growth model for us.
At iBinder we searched for and vetted several suppliers of a feature toggle service to handle feature toggling in our production environment. In addition to our functional requirements, it was crucial for us to find a partner that could deliver an EU-compliant service. We …
ConfigCat isn't 'battleship' class with tons of bells of whistles when compared to Optimizely or LaunchDarkly. Having said that, it does what we needed it to do and had a roadmap to add any functionality that we have felt as a shortcoming. ConfigCat is also a fraction of the …
We recommend this application because it allows us to segment and track the traffic of our domain under an analysis of their behavior, ranging from counting the number of clicks they make on a single element to the most complete action within our page in real time.
If you are looking for an experimentation/feature flag style tool that is quick to adopt and provides enough functionality for light/medium use cases, then this is the tool for you. Additionally, they are growing and expanding their functionality and feature set so they can grow alongside you and your needs. The publicly accessible roadmap is also a great benefit to see where time is being spent on which feature next.
There should be some more clarity around what makes a test significant. While this can be decided by the client themselves, some direction from the tool would be helpful.
Also, if there was an easier way to organize campaigns and search for them it would be helpful. Right now there is just a long list of campaigns and you have to rely on search to find a specific campaign. What if you don't know the name of the test?
Once you get started with your testing program, you realize that it is necessary to continue. You must keep optimizing in order to remain a vital competitor in today's marketing world. Even if you're not using Test & Target or any other user experience testing software, you ought to be performing comparison tests on your own, simply by routing your audience to different experiences and quantifying the aggregate of the results.
The recent UI update is a complete mess. It is difficult to navigate and find features that previously existed. The reactiveness of the page depending on window size is also ridiculous and it is absurd that depending on how large your window is, entire columns of functions will disappear with no indication that they are missing. The usability of the tool has fallen off a cliff.
Just everything from the website to locating what i need (docs) specific to my platforms is super easy. Not to mention the support articles answering previous 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 have a community Slack channel that is open to anyone. They always seem to have people in there, even over the weekends and are always happy to answer any questions you have,
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.
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
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 for us aligning with the Adobe suite, ensuring that future product enhancements and tools would work well together was a very important key factor in our decision
At iBinder we searched for and vetted several suppliers of a feature toggle service to handle feature toggling in our production environment. In addition to our functional requirements, it was crucial for us to find a partner that could deliver an EU-compliant service. We finally decided to sign a service agreement with ConfigCat. This has been a real success story for us – in addition to being compliant, ConfigCat delivers an amazing, flexible, and reliable service. They continue to impress by also being very transparent and having a fantastic support and they are very solution oriented and accommodating when it comes to our feature requests etc. We have now used ConfigCat for approximately 2 years and we give our warmest recommendations to anyone who needs a stable, reliable and EU-compliant feature toggle service.
This is something we've been working to improve on, as far as how we're calculating and tracking this, but Target has had a substantial ROI on our business.
I will say specific to our efforts, we could have probably done similar work if not the same work using a different testing tool (Optimizely for example), but Target has been good for us.
Allowed us to migrate seamlessly from a major customer communication system to another, reducing end-user friction and production bugs by being able to turn features off if they didn't work as intended.
We went from zero experimentation to running 10-20 experiments concurrently across systems. Engineering teams are thinking in an experimentation mindset.