Comparing Google SiteOptimizer and Omniture Test & Target
I was asked recently to do a write up for the differences between Google SiteOptimizer and Omniture Test&Target. Below are the differences as well as a comparison chart that describes side by side which each one offers.
Google SiteOptimizer:
Google SiteOptimizer is a handy FREE tool that allows you to begin testing (A/B and MVT only) and start building the wins/successes and business case for bringing in a more robust tool like Optimost, SiteSpec, Amadesa or Test&Target. It is relatively easy to implement and can easily be integrated with Google Analytics to tie your testing data with your site specific data (regardless of if you are using multiple domains or multiple subdomains).
The downsides to Google SiteOptimizer are numerous but this is to be expected from a free tool. There is no way to create a ramp up period where most of your traffic goes to the control page while only a minimum amount goes to the “A” page. You also can’t set up pathing by testing version seen to see what paths those users are taking.
Within Omniture T&T, I mention additional shortcomings.
Omniture Test&Target:
Test and Target has several essential features that Google’s tool lacks: a testing QA environment, a permissions system to restrict live content changes, and fractional factorial multivariate testing. The ability to QA and limit test publishing minimizes the risk of moving content management into a new application, and it more closely aligns with many companies processes for publishing general site content.
Fractional factorial testing allows us to test only a portion of all the possible combination’s of features in a multivariate test. Mathematical modeling then determines the winning combination, even if it was not tested. This approach immensely broadens our testing ability, because we are not limited to running long MVT tests that explore every possible permutation of the features. We will get answers much quicker, which allows us to test more but also minimizes the risk of testing bad combinations.
Test and Target’s other advantages include more flexibility in choosing the size and composition of the audience to receive the test, some predictive learning features, and fail safes to shut off bad performing tests. Google’s feature set is ultimately very basic, more suited for sites already using Google Analytics, with few success metrics, and a fairly homogeneous audience.
Written by:
Dorian D. Regester
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
