The Airship Experience Platform provides an end-to-end solution for unifying experiences across channels and capturing value across the entire customer lifecycle.
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.
We've tested a bunch of different CRM tools over the years and Airship has been a winner for its functionality, features, cost, and ability to integrate with other softwares that we use. It has been great for SMS and mobile in particular. It could certainly be a one stop shop …
The above mentioned products were evaluated for initial RFQ process however Airship was awarded for the robustness and ease of use, and its strategy aligns with Vodafone's App usage engagement
Airship is superb in customer support against all others. Even though I feel CleverTap may be a better choice but probably will not be as easy as Airship when setting them up and operating it. As for MoEngage, the last experience I had was simply not good enough, but that was …
I have also worked with Vibes, Salesforce, Pendo, and Swrve for mobile app marketing efforts, and I always come back to airship as delivering the best Push and In-App messaging capabilities. If you want a full service platform for Push and In-App messaging rather than …
There was a time when we went off Urban Airship and went to Spreed. We were using Spreed's app, so there was much better integration on push notifications. The push notification took readers directly into the story. When we moved from Spreed to our own native app, we went back …
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 …
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 …
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.
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 …
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.
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.
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.
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 …
Verified User
Anonymous
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.
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
Airship
Google Content Experiments (discontinued)
Testing and Experimentation
Comparison of Testing and Experimentation features of Product A and Product B
Airship
-
Ratings
Google Content Experiments (discontinued)
9.2
Ratings
11% above category average
a/b experiment testing
00 Ratings
9.00 Ratings
Split URL testing
00 Ratings
10.00 Ratings
Multivariate testing
00 Ratings
10.00 Ratings
Multi-page/funnel testing
00 Ratings
9.00 Ratings
Cross-browser testing
00 Ratings
8.00 Ratings
Mobile app testing
00 Ratings
8.00 Ratings
Test significance
00 Ratings
9.00 Ratings
Visual / WYSIWYG editor
00 Ratings
10.00 Ratings
Advanced code editor
00 Ratings
9.00 Ratings
Page surveys
00 Ratings
8.00 Ratings
Visitor recordings
00 Ratings
8.00 Ratings
Preview mode
00 Ratings
8.00 Ratings
Test duration calculator
00 Ratings
10.00 Ratings
Experiment scheduler
00 Ratings
10.00 Ratings
Experiment workflow and approval
00 Ratings
8.00 Ratings
Dynamic experiment activation
00 Ratings
10.00 Ratings
Client-side tests
00 Ratings
10.00 Ratings
Server-side tests
00 Ratings
10.00 Ratings
Mutually exclusive tests
00 Ratings
10.00 Ratings
Audience Segmentation & Targeting
Comparison of Audience Segmentation & Targeting features of Product A and Product B
Airship
-
Ratings
Google Content Experiments (discontinued)
10.0
Ratings
16% above category average
Standard visitor segmentation
00 Ratings
10.00 Ratings
Behavioral visitor segmentation
00 Ratings
10.00 Ratings
Traffic allocation control
00 Ratings
10.00 Ratings
Website personalization
00 Ratings
10.00 Ratings
Results and Analysis
Comparison of Results and Analysis features of Product A and Product B
Well-Suited for: 1. Mobile App Notifications: Ideal for targeted push notifications in apps. 2. Customer Segmentation: Effective for personalized marketing campaigns based on user data. 3. Event-Triggered Automation: Great for automated messaging based on user actions. 4. A/B Testing: Useful for optimizing campaign messages and strategies. Less Appropriate for: 1. Non-Mobile Channels: Less effective if the primary focus is on non-mobile communications like email or direct mail. 2. Basic Email Marketing: Other platforms might be better suited for simple, broad email campaigns without complex segmentation or personalization needs.
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.
Setting up the target audience within Airship using attributes is one of my favorites.
Airship has a very user-friendly interface with detailed documentation for self-help. I also enjoy the training sessions, articles and reports Airship organized as those are very insightful and useful.
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.
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.
The interface takes a bit getting used to in order to know how to take advantage of everything. Some of the analytics that are available are particularly hard to find, so it's important to pay attention when customer support reviews everything, but everything I'd want and need in terms of Push and In-App messaging is all there.
I have not had to interact much with customer support as I have been able to find the vast majority of the answers I'm looking for within their documentation, which I very much appreciate because it saves me a lot of time. Customer support has been responsive and helpful for the most part during the couple of interactions I've had.
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.
I have also worked with Vibes, Salesforce, Pendo, and Swrve for mobile app marketing efforts, and I always come back to airship as delivering the best Push and In-App messaging capabilities. If you want a full service platform for Push and In-App messaging rather than configuring these channels through something that is no cost such as Firebase, then i would recommend Airship.
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.
The ROI has increased more than approx. 50% (exact details to be confirmed) based on cross-channel orchestration
Using push notifications alone, we have seen a huge increase in app engagement which was a challenge before to nudge users to get back to the App after initial download
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.