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
Coveo Qubit
Score 7.4 out of 10
Enterprise companies (1,001+ employees)
Qubit, now from Coveo (acquired October 2021) uses visitor history data to understand different user segments and serve personalized messages to segments using JavaScript. It is available as either a managed or self-service model. Data is collected using Qubit's own Universal Variable data model, or by integrating the user's existing model via our API. It combines quantitative data with qualitative visitor feedback to give Qubit users the ability to detect areas for optimization.
Using…
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 …
In my previous company one of the brands was using Optimizely, while the brand I was working for was using Qubit. Qubit proved to be so much more than a multi-variant platform. It was much easier to use - we didn't have to rely on the tech team to implement tests. This way we …
Key points that keep us close to Qubit are its knowledgeable resources, presentation and UI, ease of getting trained, ease of use, low time to market, analytics and reports.
We're using Qubit as a fully managed testing platform, and their account management and level of service we've received from any other contact (technical, support, sales etc) was above any of their competitors. Integration and on-boarding was well done and we feel confident …
Having previously used Maxymiser around 3 years ago, I found their setup to be geared more away from faster moving retail. While tests would be thoroughly researched and built to a high standard, the length of time to turn around a single test was too long. Qubit has allowed us …
As alternatives to Qubit, we considered: * Optimizely: more limited personalisation options, more expensive to be used across different sites. * Maxymiser: more expensive.
We've chosen Qubit because of the data driven approach, ease of use and the offered support. We like the ability to build some tests externally with the Qubit help.
At the time of taking the product, we found no comparable alternatives. Since then, the product has only grown from strength to strength, so it still does not have any comparable competitors that offer both the technical product and business knowledge that Qubit can. Google …
We previously used Monetate but that was before my time so it's tough to specifically compare. However, I think the fact that we're no longer with Monetate proves that Qubit has been a better partner overall.
Simple usability is a controlled group testing only. Qubit on the other hand allows you to run a test on a live site with traffic ranging from 5% to 95%
Qubit has a nicer UI than Google Tag Manager and offers the A/B testing that GTM doesn't - but for script management, there's not a lot to choose between them.
Qubit is probably the most powerful tool that we reviewed. The challenge is that with the power comes a large responsibility to make sure you are doing it right and not having issues. With digital tools, power and complexity seem to go together so you have to make sure that you …
I was not directly involved in the decision-making process but understand that overall functionality, data integration, and UX testing weighed against the cost of the solution were the deciding factors.
Qubit was the first CRO tool we have used, and have stuck with it, even though we've tested other platforms on our other websites. I think it's a testament to Qubit and their staff that they are still implemented on our largest website.
Primarily the strength of Qubit's data layer and therefore the ability to personalise and create seamless user journeys for our different customer segments.
The decision to use Qubit was made based on the capacity to run a 3 month test before committing for a longer term and down to a recommendation from a sister company.
We were not aware of some of the other offerings from Qubit so I think this is an area that could be improved upon. For us, Qubit is seen as an A/B testing tool more than anything else so I would say that the promotion of additional tools offered by Qubit is certainty something …
Our company decided to choose Qubit due to its perceived similarly to optimizely and promise infinite integrations through open tag. Sadly it didn't live up to its promise. The integrations were not integrations as most people would understand it. It was all very manual and you …
We opted for Qubit due to their personalisation features compared to the other market offering, as we felt their Visitor Cloud was a USP in the industry. The Visitor Cloud allows further personalisations, such as social proofs, to complement internal data we have gathered and …
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.
Coveo Qubit is a very helpful platform mainly for organizations that need to provide a solid business model before carrying out any implementation or new functionality. In addition, it is a very good tool to generate changes and show different content to different types of clients, with their personalization and segmentation criteria.It is ideal for simultaneous testing and customization, only one of these activities individually is not recommended.
The testing platform itself is continually evolving. This means that we are always able to try new ideas as well as quickly and efficiently put others into practice.
The beta programme and the additional functionality products are both exciting to see as well as ensuring we can cherry pick the functionality we need. This means that we don't end up paying for functionality we don't need
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?
Some of the reporting within Qubit has been overly simplified in the past, a point they are continually addressing.
At times the syntax of experience (test) creation can be specific to Qubit and so there is a slight learning curve for developers.
Unless developers have much time to allocate to creating tests in Qubit, marketers may potentially find simple tests limited. I would recommend having someone in-house as we do.
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.
Qubit helps out immensely and lays out in plain English the profitability of each of our A-B tests. Say Qubit has provided us overall with a 5% profit increase this year (that is a completely arbitrary figure for illustration only), then if we didn't renew it could be seen as us taking a 5% loss as Qubit wouldn't be there. The results of our tests are showing no slowing down and as Qubit and Toast grow to understand each other better we can only see our performance getting better as the years go on.
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.
Overall navigation on Qubit is very user friendly and requires a minimal training to be up and running. Be it reviewing existing experiences or setting up new experiences, the process is pretty simple for business user. Add some basic development skills to your kitty, you can do magic with Qubit and make your website do wonders!
I would say that the Qubit account managers are always available for any request. We have a lot of different promotions that could always do with last minute optimizing or changes and Qubit can be relied on to get this changes up and running in an impressive amount of time, so that we don't need to patch live or wait for the next IT sprint. Invaluable to our business.
Technology is good for A/B testing and personalisation - allowing any team with a dedicated developer to create test relatively easily and to report/analyse them in a fair amount of details. Some advanced features, especially on the set up of test cells, are dearly missing. Unfortunately, new features are often not free of bugs... Also, support is sub-par, which means new features are realised without proper documentation, example or training (but of our Qubit counterparts and internally).
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
Qubit are supportive and flexible in providing support. They are happy working out of usual hours, even on weekends and if I have any doubts about the set up of an experience they’re quick to respond and willing to check my work. On particularly big revenue days they monitor our account and they’re quick to identify and problem solve any issues.
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 great, but would be great to have a script or PDF with some explanations of the qubit JS layer. Without the script you can just try to learn on your own, so the training is not as powerfull as it could be. On the other hand - would be great to have training related to reading statistics or personalisation.
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
Implementation couldn't be easier. All we needed to do was insert the tag. (easy) and set up the data layer. (dev required) This was pretty smooth in comparison to some of the other tools we use on our site, and was done in less than a day. Note : Data needs to be collected for a set period of time before you can accurately rely on the data that you are receiving. This is normal though with everyone else that we have used
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
We're using Qubit as a fully managed testing platform, and their account management and level of service we've received from any other contact (technical, support, sales etc) was above any of their competitors. Integration and on-boarding was well done and we feel confident that the campaigns are developed and tested thoroughly.
Our requirements change throughout the year like most E Commerce retailers. At Christmas and Peak we're dealing with around ten times the usual traffic on the site. Qubit had no problems with this at all, tests continued to fire, and stats were still reported accurately. I don't think that it is the most server intensive .js anyway, but we have seen no issues at all.
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.