Airship vs. Google Content Experiments (discontinued)

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Airship
Score 8.5 out of 10
N/A
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.N/A
Pricing
AirshipGoogle Content Experiments (discontinued)
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
AirshipGoogle Content Experiments (discontinued)
Free Trial
YesNo
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeOptionalNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
AirshipGoogle Content Experiments (discontinued)
Considered Both Products
Airship
Chose Airship
They are the only Application/Push vendor we have used since I started w/ the company about 4 years ago. I believe we have sued them since 2016 or so.
Chose Airship
Airship allows for more uses for a better value and is more of a focused outreach for the parishioners, and much easier to use with mobile devises.
Chose Airship
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 …
Chose Airship
Airship have a very different set of features, we could not find an exact match of it.
Chose Airship
Easy user interface and seamless integration. Great Customer engagement
Chose Airship
Airship allows for more uses for a better value and is more of a focused outreach for the parishioners, and much easier to use with mobile devises.
Chose Airship
We use Sailthru for emails. We have not used them for pushes so I can't compare the two.
Chose Airship
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
Chose Airship
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 …
Chose Airship
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 …
Chose Airship
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 (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
AirshipGoogle 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 testing00 Ratings9.00 Ratings
Split URL testing00 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Multivariate testing00 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Multi-page/funnel testing00 Ratings9.00 Ratings
Cross-browser testing00 Ratings8.00 Ratings
Mobile app testing00 Ratings8.00 Ratings
Test significance00 Ratings9.00 Ratings
Visual / WYSIWYG editor00 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Advanced code editor00 Ratings9.00 Ratings
Page surveys00 Ratings8.00 Ratings
Visitor recordings00 Ratings8.00 Ratings
Preview mode00 Ratings8.00 Ratings
Test duration calculator00 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Experiment scheduler00 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Experiment workflow and approval00 Ratings8.00 Ratings
Dynamic experiment activation00 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Client-side tests00 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Server-side tests00 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Mutually exclusive tests00 Ratings10.00 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 segmentation00 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Behavioral visitor segmentation00 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Traffic allocation control00 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Website personalization00 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Results and Analysis
Comparison of Results and Analysis features of Product A and Product B
Airship
-
Ratings
Google Content Experiments (discontinued)
9.9
Ratings
16% above category average
Click analytics00 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Form fill analysis00 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Conversion tracking00 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Goal tracking00 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Test reporting00 Ratings9.00 Ratings
Results segmentation00 Ratings10.00 Ratings
CSV export00 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Experiments results dashboard00 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Best Alternatives
AirshipGoogle Content Experiments (discontinued)
Small Businesses
OneSignal
OneSignal
Score 8.0 out of 10
Convert Experiences
Convert Experiences
Score 9.9 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
Flurry Analytics
Flurry Analytics
Score 9.0 out of 10
Dynamic Yield
Dynamic Yield
Score 8.3 out of 10
Enterprises
Flurry Analytics
Flurry Analytics
Score 9.0 out of 10
Dynamic Yield
Dynamic Yield
Score 8.3 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
AirshipGoogle Content Experiments (discontinued)
Likelihood to Recommend
8.9
(0 ratings)
9.0
(0 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
-
(0 ratings)
7.5
(0 ratings)
Usability
6.0
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
9.0
(0 ratings)
8.0
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
AirshipGoogle Content Experiments (discontinued)
Likelihood to Recommend
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.
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
  • 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.
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
  • The automated A/B testing winner selection and application should be added
  • The flexibility of message shape, specifically incorporating transparency so messages do not need to be a rectangular shape
  • Faster and more reliable servers around the globe
  • Making more detailed use cases and tutorials to be followed can simplify things for users
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
No answers on this topic
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 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.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Support Rating
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.
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
Alternatives Considered
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.
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
  • 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
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

Airship Screenshots

Screenshot of Screenshot of Screenshot of