Adobe Target vs. Google Content Experiments (discontinued)

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Adobe Target
Score 8.8 out of 10
N/A
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
Google Content Experiments (discontinued)
Score 7.3 out of 10
N/A
Google Content Experiments was a tool that can be used to create A/B test from within Google Analytics. It has been discontinued since 2019, and Google now recommends using its Google Optimize service for A/B testing.N/A
Pricing
Adobe TargetGoogle Content Experiments (discontinued)
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Adobe TargetGoogle Content Experiments (discontinued)
Free Trial
NoNo
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Adobe TargetGoogle Content Experiments (discontinued)
Considered Both Products
Adobe Target
Chose Adobe Target
The best design products. Because you understand what designers needs.
specially FIGMA
Chose Adobe Target
This tools are very important to create a new visual experience to Adobe Target.
Chose Adobe Target
We have integration and use cases for both solutions, personalization at Marketo and use cases based on data from adobe analytics
Chose Adobe Target
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 …
Chose Adobe Target
Ease of use, integration with Analytics eliminated any waiting periods. Easier to implement and has more features in one place.
Chose Adobe Target
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 …
Chose Adobe Target
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 …
Chose Adobe Target
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.
Chose Adobe Target
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 …
Chose Adobe Target
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 …
Chose Adobe Target
I have not used another product like Adobe Target.
Chose Adobe Target
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.
Chose Adobe Target
Target has far superior functionality, it integrates with Adobe Analytics and is easy to build tests.
Chose Adobe Target
It fits on top of our comprehensive data stack
Chose Adobe Target
Many of the same features, but Adobe Test and Target was much more expensive.
Chose Adobe Target
Usability and implementation is harder with other products than with Test and Target.
Chose Adobe Target
Maxymiser,Monetate,Optimizely
Chose Adobe Target
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 …
Chose Adobe Target
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.
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 …
Google Content Experiments (discontinued)
Chose Google Content Experiments (discontinued)
Google Content Experiments is a free tool and the leading tool in the industry. It's pretty simple to set up a test and use content experiments to monitor objectives once Google Analytics is installed. Less experienced team members can run tests with some training. There are …
Chose Google Content Experiments (discontinued)
It frankly was down to cost. Other platforms offer better targeting etc., however, we found that unless we could demonstrate early value - we didn't get budget sign off. Our teams aren't usually large enough to justify the cost and time to invest in a more complex platform - so …
Chose Google Content Experiments (discontinued)
Google Website Optimizer was a better product but has been discontinued. We have also used Test and Target , which has more features but we have been doing fine with Google Content Experiments. Most testing situations can be handled with Google Content Experiments.
Chose Google Content Experiments (discontinued)
Google Content Experiment cannot compete with Adobe Test and Target, Quadratics or even Optimizley. It is harder to use with no editing interface, so pages must be actually developed. It doesn't allow for any advanced segmenting or multivarient testing. But it is free, so …
Chose Google Content Experiments (discontinued)
I have not used any alternatives. I only use Content Experiments because it is in GA.
Chose Google Content Experiments (discontinued)
Google CE is free, Optimizely isn't plus only until recently I found out that Optimizely can work with multiple goals, however, this was found by meeting their employees at a trade show and not via their website.
Chose Google Content Experiments (discontinued)
We'd use content experiments as a complimentary testing tool alongside more comprehensive testing packages out there. As a free testing tool it does the job for basic A/B testing.
Chose Google Content Experiments (discontinued)
If you are looking for a more advanced great value for money solution I would recommend investigating Visual Website Optimizer. For a more powerful enterprise level solution with the option to have a fully managed service I would recommend Maxymiser.
Chose Google Content Experiments (discontinued)
Google Content Experiments provides significantly more insight, historical data and analysis than Unbounce. However, if you do need a solution that offers a WYSIWYG editor, landing page hosting, and limited reporting and testing, Unbounce is a good all-in-one solution and that …
Chose Google Content Experiments (discontinued)
GCE isn't better or worse than any of these, it's just different. When I have the time to build a new page, setup the testing scripts, and go - then I'll use GCE. If I'm doing multivariate I use VWO. If I'm testing a quick button or headline change, I use Optimizely or UnBounce.
Chose Google Content Experiments (discontinued)
Google CE does a great job streamlining tools and features. Optimizely does not offer nearly the same amount of tools or resources that G CE does. I would use CE in the future but stay away from Optimizely. Google also has a lot more resources for accruing knowledge on it …
Features
Adobe TargetGoogle Content Experiments (discontinued)
Testing and Experimentation
Comparison of Testing and Experimentation features of Product A and Product B
Adobe Target
8.6
Ratings
5% above category average
Google Content Experiments (discontinued)
9.2
Ratings
11% above category average
a/b experiment testing10.00 Ratings9.00 Ratings
Split URL testing8.50 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Multivariate testing9.50 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Multi-page/funnel testing8.00 Ratings9.00 Ratings
Cross-browser testing8.60 Ratings8.00 Ratings
Mobile app testing8.60 Ratings8.00 Ratings
Test significance7.40 Ratings9.00 Ratings
Visual / WYSIWYG editor8.50 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Advanced code editor8.00 Ratings9.00 Ratings
Page surveys9.00 Ratings8.00 Ratings
Visitor recordings8.50 Ratings8.00 Ratings
Preview mode9.50 Ratings8.00 Ratings
Test duration calculator9.50 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Experiment scheduler9.00 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Experiment workflow and approval7.90 Ratings8.00 Ratings
Dynamic experiment activation8.00 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Client-side tests9.50 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Server-side tests8.00 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Mutually exclusive tests7.50 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Audience Segmentation & Targeting
Comparison of Audience Segmentation & Targeting features of Product A and Product B
Adobe Target
8.5
Ratings
0% below category average
Google Content Experiments (discontinued)
10.0
Ratings
16% above category average
Standard visitor segmentation8.50 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Behavioral visitor segmentation8.00 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Traffic allocation control8.50 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Website personalization9.00 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Results and Analysis
Comparison of Results and Analysis features of Product A and Product B
Adobe Target
9.0
Ratings
7% above category average
Google Content Experiments (discontinued)
9.9
Ratings
16% above category average
Heatmap tool9.00 Ratings00 Ratings
Click analytics9.00 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Scroll maps9.00 Ratings00 Ratings
Form fill analysis9.00 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Conversion tracking9.50 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Goal tracking8.00 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Test reporting9.50 Ratings9.00 Ratings
Results segmentation8.50 Ratings10.00 Ratings
CSV export9.50 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Experiments results dashboard8.50 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Best Alternatives
Adobe TargetGoogle Content Experiments (discontinued)
Small Businesses
Convert Experiences
Convert Experiences
Score 9.9 out of 10
Convert Experiences
Convert Experiences
Score 9.9 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
Dynamic Yield
Dynamic Yield
Score 8.3 out of 10
Dynamic Yield
Dynamic Yield
Score 8.3 out of 10
Enterprises
Dynamic Yield
Dynamic Yield
Score 8.3 out of 10
Dynamic Yield
Dynamic Yield
Score 8.3 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
Adobe TargetGoogle Content Experiments (discontinued)
Likelihood to Recommend
8.5
(0 ratings)
9.0
(0 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
6.3
(0 ratings)
7.5
(0 ratings)
Usability
8.5
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Availability
6.1
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Performance
8.0
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
3.5
(0 ratings)
8.0
(0 ratings)
In-Person Training
8.1
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Online Training
6.1
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Implementation Rating
7.2
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
Adobe TargetGoogle Content Experiments (discontinued)
Likelihood to Recommend
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.
Read full review
Google Content Experiments is suited for large and small organizations, no matter your organizational goals. It is not recommended for organizations that are only interested in qualitative data, as there are other tools for receiving specific user experience feedback. It is also not recommended that you implement tests without some sort of goal in mind.
Read full review
Pros
  • Because the software is established there is lots of online help available and most of the bugs have been worked out
  • Adobe has a vast supply of resources if your pockets are deep enough.
  • The dashboard is easy to follow and is getting more user-friendly. You no longer have to be an HTML wizard to implement changes.
Read full review
  • When you need to measure against event-based goals
  • If you need to see how the test variations performed against secondary goals
  • Given that the the platform requires you actually code a new page with a unique URL, this tool can be good for radical redesigns.
  • Great insights into other information about your testing groups, like whether or not they're mobile, screen size, browser, or really any dimension available in GA.
Read full review
Cons
  • 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?
Read full review
  • You can only optimise for one goal, so if you have several conversions, like phone call and email you need to do it manually.
  • It seems not to work that well for pages with lower amounts of traffic - not great for new or niche sites.
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
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.
Read full review
Content Experiments just makes it is simple and easy to implement A|B tests. We will be evaluating other tools in search of a more robust system for multivariate and cross-page testing, such as Optimizely or Visual Website Optimizer. However, for basic testing, you can't really beat it.
Read full review
Usability
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.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Reliability and Availability
i don't think we use the full functionalities of the tool, but to use the full functions, it's almost impossible (Too hard)
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Performance
The bottleneck is never the software program
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Support Rating
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
Read full review
Using the free tool, overall "live support" is limited. However, there are plenty of online resources to get started. If you need handheld support, it is best to upgrade the service or hire a developer through one of Google's partner agencies. There could be more support for understanding what makes a test useful or not.
Read full review
In-Person Training
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)
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Online Training
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.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Implementation Rating
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
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Alternatives Considered
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
Read full review
Google Website Optimizer was a better product but has been discontinued. We have also used Test and Target , which has more features but we have been doing fine with Google Content Experiments. Most testing situations can be handled with Google Content Experiments.
Read full review
Return on Investment
  • 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.
Read full review
  • Doing good experiments/Optimize has helped to take out the guesswork of the things we want to implement.
  • We have done fairly complex changes such as changing navigation and managed to see improvements outcomes immediately before we have to request developer.
  • Our teams have become more data centric in how they approach changes.
Read full review
ScreenShots