Convert Experiences is an experimentation platform that offers features and support to run A/B tests across multiple growth channels. Its enterprise-ready advanced features include full stack experimentation, multi-page testing, post-segmentation, sequential testing, targeting with 40+ filters, triggering tests based on data in other apps (data sources), dynamic triggers, complex goal tracking, and a secure API. It includes 90+ out-of-the box integrations in a…
$299
per month 100k tested users per month
SiteSpect
Score 8.0 out of 10
Enterprise companies (1,001+ employees)
Key features include:
- A/B, split, and multivariate testing campaign management
- Targeting and personalization
- Front-end usability testing
- Back-end testing using Origin Experiments
- Site acceleration with SiteSpect AMPS(R)
- Mobile site and native app support
N/A
Pricing
Convert Experiences
SiteSpect
Editions & Modules
Growth
$299
per month 100k tested users per month
Pro
$5988
per year 3M tested users available upfront
Enterprise
Pricing available on request
From 1M tested users/mo (billed annually)
Enterprise
Pricing available on request
From 1M tested users/mo (billed annually)
SiteSpect Enterprise
$0
SiteSpect Cloud
$0
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Convert Experiences
SiteSpect
Free Trial
Yes
Yes
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
Required
Additional Details
1. Annual contract or monthly payments available (40% discount for annual pricing).
2. Pricing is not feature dependent. Some features like integrations, goals, Live Logs are necessary to test successfully. This is why Convert caps by unique tested users - basically visitors who have been bucketed to see a variation and are unique to that variation. As a result the app tested users are always </= the site's net traffic.
Three words: value for money. In a due diligence comparison, Convert Experiences came up more than twice less expensive than the nearest competitor, while offering more product features, better performance and a quick response time with support/sales agents that actually …
Convert Experiences sits in a niche of great products, against which it competes very well and remains held in high regard as it achieves pretty much everything that the bigger platforms put on the table but in a more cost-effective model. The reason we initially chose …
Convert has the best JS code editor for advanced users (and developers). It doesn't have as great integration with GA as Google Optimize, but it also doesn't have a limit to 5 tests at one time. It's also much easier to use than Optimizely.
Although not as robust as Adobe Target, Convert fills the niche with solid functionality at a great price. Comparable to Optimizely and far above Google Optimize.
Although VWO is slightly cheaper it flickers quite a bit, hence why I originally looked into alternative software to use for A/B testing. VWO also has other features that could be useful, but they can be found in tools you may already be using, like Hotjar. Also, their support …
Convert was selected based on price point, feature set, and UI/UX. All three are very friendly to new testers and small to mid-market size companies. Their UI and tool workflow is the best out of all of the non-enterprise solutions that I have tried. There is some small room …
There were a number of other tools I used. Specifically though: they expose the DMP features that some other companies price into oblivion and enterprise levels (if the other tools have them at all!)
I feel like I've gushed a lot about the DMP and power user features of Convert …
The biggest point for Convert Experiences is definitely the price and the completeness of their packages. Their Magento plugin makes it great for running tests on ecommerce stores. One thing that's missing for me is deeper insights into revenue (something optimizely does …
Visual Website Optimizer's feature set is not as well suited to advanced experiments (it doesn't seem to allow direct editing of variation code). Optimizely is expensive and their agency plan requires a 12 month minimum contract. Support is not as great. Optimizely also does …
While Optimizely is an amazing A/B testing tool, Convert has almost the exact same offerings but at a much lower cost. The customer and technical support are excellent as well, and Dennis's insights and strategy calls are very helpful.
Visual Website Optimizer costs too much and misses a lot of transactions due to third-party cookies. Optimizely flat out refused to support Shopify. They withdrew their app from the marketplace in 2014.
We haven't seen any platform deliver the flicker-free performance of SiteSpect. While most platforms have improved their business user facing tools since we originally selected SiteSpect, we've never had any doubt about it's advanced capabilities. Any test we can imagine can be …
Most of these other tools do not really have a direct comparison. Optimizely and Visual Website Optimizer (VWO) are both A/B testing tools that are similar in nature to SiteSpect. Both Optimizely and VWO are good tools and have their place, but they are not as flexible or as …
I've also used Adobe's Test & Target tool at another company. It has a nice user interface, but SiteSpect is easier to scale and maintain because the architecture eliminates the need to tag (put mboxes) on the pages on your site. We also did some research on Optimizely, but …
SiteSpect is a whole different ball game when it comes to these other tools. SiteSpect is about creating a testing culture within your business for continual website improvements. These tests can be conducted without any developer intervention by our clients. Once SiteSpect is …
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose SiteSpect
I have used all the tools in the market. Sitespect kicks them into the curb based on how easy it is to build variations, and hot it doesnt interfere with client load.
Features
Convert Experiences
SiteSpect
Testing and Experimentation
Comparison of Testing and Experimentation features of Product A and Product B
Convert Experiences
9.4
Ratings
14% above category average
SiteSpect
-
Ratings
a/b experiment testing
9.90 Ratings
00 Ratings
Split URL testing
10.00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Multivariate testing
9.80 Ratings
00 Ratings
Multi-page/funnel testing
9.00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Cross-browser testing
9.50 Ratings
00 Ratings
Mobile app testing
9.10 Ratings
00 Ratings
Test significance
10.00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Visual / WYSIWYG editor
9.80 Ratings
00 Ratings
Advanced code editor
9.90 Ratings
00 Ratings
Page surveys
9.10 Ratings
00 Ratings
Visitor recordings
9.10 Ratings
00 Ratings
Preview mode
10.00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Test duration calculator
7.40 Ratings
00 Ratings
Experiment scheduler
6.90 Ratings
00 Ratings
Experiment workflow and approval
9.10 Ratings
00 Ratings
Dynamic experiment activation
10.00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Client-side tests
10.00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Server-side tests
8.90 Ratings
00 Ratings
Mutually exclusive tests
10.00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Audience Segmentation & Targeting
Comparison of Audience Segmentation & Targeting features of Product A and Product B
Convert Experiences
9.9
Ratings
15% above category average
SiteSpect
-
Ratings
Standard visitor segmentation
10.00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Behavioral visitor segmentation
9.80 Ratings
00 Ratings
Traffic allocation control
10.00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Website personalization
9.80 Ratings
00 Ratings
Results and Analysis
Comparison of Results and Analysis features of Product A and Product B
Definitely well suited for budget conscious companies that want a solid array of functionality but without having to pay an exorbitant amount. Great for marketing and analytics team members that need the ability to get in and set up tests w/o dev assistance. But, functionality is there for developers to get in and set up more complicated tests.
SiteSpect is kind of the difference between the space shuttle and a bicycle. They will both get you places. However Sitespect is considerably more complex and more configurable than most other options that I have seen and used (Optimizely, Visual Website Optimizer, etc.). But those other solutions also have a much lower learning curve and [users] are able to do a lot of things with relatively no coding experience or skill, where SiteSpect really does need capable developers to be utilized well.
The platform is good value for money, comparing its features and prices to some of the bigger players.
The tool is very flexible and can be used for simpler tests right through to much more challenging and rewarding testing but does require a more thorough knowledge of the platform.
Their support team is always available and always responsive, not resting until resolutions are met.
You can quickly run test campaigns of content and promotions – without burdening valuable IT resources, and without the need for JavaScript tags, code changes, or JavaScript that slow your ability to test, and decrease your site’s speed.
The only thing I'm really missing is segmentation during or after testing of the results by device, new users etc., within the results page. Targeting of users based on segments is obviously possible.
There are a few inconsistencies in their user interface that I would have liked to see differently. This could be personal taste though.
One current limitation of Sitespect is that the data it captures is numeric. For example, it will not capture a department name variable such as supplements. The workaround is that a user can create a supplement department value capture that fires as 0 or 1. For companies with very large numbers of departments the workaround can be a time consuming process.
I'm no longer at the company where I used SiteSpect, but based on my 18+ months as the manager responsible for the use of SiteSpect, I'd definitely recommend continuing with the product. I've since recommended it to one other company. SiteSpect has been a great business partner - the level of customer support that I got was outstanding over the time that I used the product.
To use the platform in the context of developing enhanced tests that stretch the platform there is as with most things a learning curve. However, if you're a casual user or have standard experiments that you wish to run you would be easily able to hit the ground running.
Just need to have your requirements ready such as, what you are expecting from the tool, is there anything specific you want regarding reporting, tracking etc.
Convert was selected based on price point, feature set, and UI/UX. All three are very friendly to new testers and small to mid-market size companies. Their UI and tool workflow is the best out of all of the non-enterprise solutions that I have tried. There is some small room for improvement, but that only really affects power users or tests that require significant coding/development work to execute.
We haven't seen any platform deliver the flicker-free performance of SiteSpect. While most platforms have improved their business user facing tools since we originally selected SiteSpect, we've never had any doubt about it's advanced capabilities. Any test we can imagine can be run through SiteSpect, and they have provided the support we required when we didn't have the expertise in-house to realize our vision. At this stage, I feel that SiteSpect's user interface lags behind the competition, but it's feature set can't be argued with.
Using Convert has allowed us to make quick decisions on site edits and price changes. Seeing and sharing quick results makes our operations much more profitable.
Connecting the tests with Shopify has produced very valuable and timely results that we can act upon as soon as we see statistically significant results.