a/b 工具test_3种A / B测试工具比较

a/b 工具test

In my recent article that covered Google Analytics alternatives, someone asked a question in the comments about A/B testing. In response, two tools were mentioned: Optimizely and Visual Website Optimizer. In this post, I’m going to review these in addition to another one called Google Analytics Content Experiments, which offers simplified (but free) A/B testing functionality as part of the Analytics suite.

在我最近的有关Google Analytics(分析)替代方法的文章中，有人在有关A / B测试的评论中提出了一个问题。 作为回应，提到了两个工具： Optimizely和Visual Website Optimizer 。 在这篇文章中，除了另外一个称为Google Analytics(分析)Content Experiments的Google Analytics(分析)实验之外，我还将对其进行复习，该实验提供了简化(但免费)的A / B测试功能，作为Analytics(分析)套件的一部分。

If you’re new to A/B testing in general, I recommend Kerry Butters’ articles Are Most Winning A/B Test Results Misleading? and The Designer’s Guide to A/B Testing, both of which include more basic info on what A/B testing is and why it’s important.

如果您一般不熟悉A / B测试，我建议您在Kerry Butters的文章中， “最成功的A / B测试结果是否会误导人”？ 以及《 A / B测试设计师指南》 ，两者均包含有关什么是A / B测试以及其重要性的更多基本信息。

Now let’s go on to the reviews.

现在，让我们继续进行评论。

优化地 (Optimizely)

Let’s start by looking at Optimizely. They offer a decently priced entry plan with 2,000 visits per month, which is enough to run a few tests (or one large test). Optimizely requires you to insert a snippet of code in your header (which gets confirmed by email, which is nice) after which you can use their dashboard. You just add a new experiment, and a guide takes you through all the necessary steps.

让我们从Optimizely开始。 他们提供了一个价格合理的入门计划，每月有2000次访问，足以运行一些测试(或一个大型测试)。 Optimizely要求您在标头中插入一段代码(通过电子邮件确认，这很不错)，之后您可以使用其仪表板。 您只需添加一个新实验，然后指南就会带您完成所有必要步骤。

I prepared an experiment to test whether Google Adsense link units should be put below (how it currently is) or above the navigation links. You can see the real page here to get an idea.

我准备了一个实验，以测试Google Adsense链接单元应放在导航链接的下方(当前状态如何)还是上方。 您可以在此处查看实际页面以了解想法。

I can easily select the related code and make the switch. This is just a test, but if it was a real analysis I would also need to generate new Adsense code to measure the impact in earnings. But for now it’s the concept that matters.

我可以轻松选择相关代码并进行切换。 这只是一个测试，但如果是真实的分析，我还需要生成新的Adsense代码以衡量收益影响。 但是现在重要的是概念。

If you run a very popular site, you can add one or more conditions to filter your traffic (like coming from a specific URL), as shown below:

如果您经营一个非常受欢迎的网站，则可以添加一个或多个条件来过滤流量(例如来自特定URL的流量)，如下所示：

You can also set up goals to show up in your report, but I find the standard set very limited. You can compare on the basis of clicks, pageviews, or custom events that you have to set up yourself with JavaScript.

您还可以设置目标以显示在报告中，但是我发现标准集非常有限。 您可以根据必须使用JavaScript设置的点击次数，综合浏览量或自定义事件进行比较。

In their sales pitch, Optimizely states that you don’t have to be a coder to get it working. But if you want to do some serious tracking, some coding is still necessary. I think a more visual approach would be preferred. Coding shouldn’t be necessary after you’ve already placed their tracking script in your header.

在他们的推销活动中，Optimizely指出您不必成为编码器即可正常工作。 但是，如果您想进行一些严格的跟踪，则仍然需要进行一些编码。 我认为更可视化的方法将是首选。 将跟踪脚本放置在标头中后，无需编码。

Let’s say you want to compare different positions for a newsletter signup box, measuring the signup rate for each position. With Optimizely, you will have to insert some JavaScript code behind your form in addition to the tracking script. This seems redundant.

假设您要比较新闻简报注册框的不同位置，以测量每个位置的注册率。 使用Optimizely，除了跟踪脚本之外，您还必须在表单后面插入一些JavaScript代码。 这似乎是多余的。

What about the results from my test? Well, this is the report I was shown.

我的测试结果如何？ 好吧，这是我看到的报告。

The results are still being collected, but this doesn’t really tell me anything since it isn’t clearly defined what these conversions are (probably clicks). This is just too limited.

结果仍在收集中，但这并没有真正告诉我任何事情，因为尚未明确定义这些转化是什么(可能是点击)。 这太有限了。

Optimizely allows for a lot of integration with heatmap tools like CrazyEgg and ClickTale, and with various analytics tools (including GA). I think at these pricing levels at least some of that functionality should be included out of the box.

Optimizely允许与诸如CrazyEgg和ClickTale之类的热图工具以及各种分析工具(包括GA)进行大量集成。 我认为，在这些定价级别上，至少应立即提供某些功能。

Optimizely looks impressive on paper and can certainly be a helpful tool if you don’t mind coding things. But I wish it was more click-and-play so you can stay focused on the testing.

Optimizely在纸上看起来令人印象深刻，并且如果您不介意编写代码，那么肯定可以成为有用的工具。 但是，我希望它能提供更多的点击播放功能，以便您可以专注于测试。

Optimizely offers a free 30-day trial.

优化地提供30天的免费试用期。

视觉网站优化器 (Visual Website Optimizer)

Now let’s look at Visual Website Optimizer (VWO), which claims you won’t need to code at all. Their pricing is quite steep, but there’s a free trial. VWO begins by taking you through the steps needed to set up your experiment. After that you are given the code to insert, but you can also use plugins for most popular systems like WordPress and Magento.

现在，让我们看一下Visual Website Optimizer (VWO)，它声称您根本不需要编写代码。 他们的价格相当高，但是有免费试用版。 VWO首先带您完成设置实验所需的步骤。 之后，您将获得插入的代码，但也可以将插件用于大多数流行的系统，如WordPress和Magento。

I made the same change to my AdSense link units as with the Optimizely test by editing the HTML. There are a few more ways to modify your page. The easiest way for my example would be using the “Rearrange” function, but that wasn’t working with the AdSense code.

通过修改HTML，我对AdSense链接单元进行了与Optimizely测试相同的更改。 还有其他几种修改页面的方法。 在我的示例中，最简单的方法是使用“重新排列”功能，但这不适用于AdSense代码。

After selecting and changing the HTML, I need to choose what I wanted to test. As you can see, I can be very specific about what to track when it comes to clicks on a link (if the test code allows for it). And there is a way to track signup forms. As with Optimizely, you can filter your traffic based on a whole range of conditions.

选择和更改HTML之后，我需要选择要测试的内容。 如您所见，我可以非常具体地确定在点击链接时要跟踪的内容(如果测试代码允许的话)。 并且有一种方法来跟踪注册表单。 与Optimizely一样，您可以根据整个条件范围过滤流量。

A nice feature of VWO is that it comes with an integrated heatmap, thought it’s not as advanced as a dedicated heatmap tool. Too bad you can’t compare both heatmaps in your A/B tests. And they aren’t very advanced either, since the coloring doesn’t really tell you much. But it’s a nice idea that could improve with a little more development.

VWO的一个不错的功能是它带有集成的热图，认为它没有专用的热图工具先进。 太糟糕了，您不能在A / B测试中同时比较两个热图。 而且它们也不是很先进，因为颜色并不能告诉您太多。 但这是一个不错的主意，可以通过更多的开发来改进。

VWO comes with a summary report and a detailed report, but to be honest these should be integrated with each other. The detailed report just adds some graphs and filters, but nothing really in-depth. The reports you do get are enough to help you in analyzing your results and use as a basis for further actions.

VWO带有摘要报告和详细报告，但老实说，它们应该相互集成。 详细报告仅添加了一些图形和过滤器，但没有真正深入的内容。 您获得的报告足以帮助您分析结果，并用作采取进一步行动的基础。

You get a little more information with VWO than with Optimizely. Engagement in this case is measured by overall clicks. Unfortunately I wasn’t able to track the actual clicks on the AdSense ads in the end, due to it being in an iframe.

通过VWO获得的信息比通过Optimizely获得的更多。 这种情况下的参与度是通过整体点击次数来衡量的。 不幸的是，由于它位于iframe中，因此最终无法跟踪对AdSense广告的实际点击。

Visual Website Optimizer gives the click-and-play experience I was missing with Optimizely, and gives you enough ways to measure how visitors respond to changes. The heatmap functionality is nice but not very useful in it’s current form. And even though reporting is a bit more than basic, it still feels too simple.

Visual Website Optimizer可以为我提供Optimizely缺少的点击播放体验，并为您提供足够的方法来衡量访问者对更改的React。 热图功能不错，但在当前形式中不是很有用。 尽管报告不只是基本内容，但感觉仍然很简单。

Visual Website Optimizer offers a free 30-day trial.

Visual Website Optimizer提供30天的免费试用期。

Google Analytics(分析)实验 (Google Analytics Experiments)

To conclude this tools comparison, I will have a look at Google Analytics Content Experiments (GACE), previously known as Google Website Optimizer. GACE is a free A/B testing tool that’s part of Google Analytics. It only allows for pure split-testing, and you have to make the different variations yourself (i.e. set up new pages).

结束本工具的比较，我将看看以前称为Google网站优化工具的Google Analytics ( 分析)内容实验 (GACE)。 GACE是Google Analytics(分析)的一部分，是免费的A / B测试工具。 它仅允许进行纯拆分测试，并且您必须自己进行不同的更改(即，设置新页面)。

To use GACE, you start by setting up your experiment and defining your objectives (which can also be predefined goals in GA, which is very helpful). You can also run experiments on Adsense results. Then you just have to define two or more testing pages (one being the original), insert some code it’s ready. You can even use your sales funnels and start split-testing these.

要使用GACE，您需要先设置实验并定义目标(也可以是GA中的预定义目标，这非常有帮助)。 您还可以对Adsense结果进行实验。 然后，您只需要定义两个或多个测试页面(一个是原始页面)，并插入一些准备就绪的代码即可。 您甚至可以使用销售渠道并开始对它们进行拆分测试。

On one of my other sites, I have published a Liquid Web review. As you can see, there are prominent blue boxes displayed with a clear call to action. Changing colors requires you to copy the original page, and make the modifications yourself (like I did here). Also, you need to make sure your alternate page isn’t indexed by itself.

在其他网站之一上，我发表了Liquid Web评论 。 如您所见，有醒目的蓝框显示，其中包含明确的号召性用语。 更改颜色需要您复制原始页面，然后自己进行修改(就像我在这里所做的那样)。 另外，您需要确保自己的备用页面没有被索引。

After you set up your experiment, you will immediately experience a major downside of GACE: You have to wait for 1-2 days to see results, unlike the two other tools, which are real-time. This means you can’t instantly act on the results coming in. With A/B testing it will definitely help to test over a combination of days, but if you are testing minor tweaks you’ll want to do a few variations per day so you can be sure which changes affected your conversions.

设置好实验后，您将立即体验GACE的主要缺点：与其他两个实时工具不同，您必须等待1-2天才能看到结果。 这意味着您不能立即对输入的结果采取行动。使用A / B测试绝对可以帮助您在几天内进行测试，但是如果您要进行细微的调整，则每天都需要进行一些更改，因此您可以确定哪些更改影响了您的转化。

GACE doesn’t allow you to filter your traffic when setting up your experiment, you can only choose which percentage of your traffic should be included in the test.

GACE不允许您在设置实验时过滤流量，您只能选择测试中应包含流量的百分比。

Another (unnecessary) disadvantage of GACE is that it changes your URL to track the experiment:

GACE的另一个(不必要的)缺点是，它会更改您的URL来跟踪实验：

While this doesn’t present major problems, it just isn’t very clean and also not very convenient when someone wants to bookmark your link (like I do a lot in Evernote).

尽管这不会带来主要问题，但是当有人要为您的链接添加书签时，它不是很干净，也不太方便(就像我在Evernote中做的很多)。

GACE does give you the best reporting results in this comparison, because it allows you to compare based on different metrics. Even the ones you didn’t initially set up are shown, but a winner is defined on the metric you put in as objective.

在此比较中，GACE确实可以为您提供最佳的报告结果，因为它使您可以基于不同的指标进行比较。 甚至会显示您最初未设置的那些，但您将客观输入的指标定义为赢家。

The Content Experiments functionality is very well integrated in the whole GA suite, which offers you some benefits over the other tools. When it comes to the testing itself, it’s rather limited and more time consuming to set it up. It also requires you to be patient. But it gives you an easy way to start with A/B testing without spending any money. And the AdSense integration is very valuable if you run an ad-supported site.

内容实验功能已很好地集成到整个GA套件中，与其他工具相比，它为您提供了一些好处。 当涉及到测试本身时，设置它是相当有限的，而且会花费更多时间。 它还需要您耐心等待。 但这为您提供了一种无需花费任何金钱即可轻松开始A / B测试的简便方法。 如果您运行的是受广告支持的网站，则AdSense集成非常有价值。

结论 (Conclusion)

In summary, even though these three products seem to offer the same functionality, the way they handle things is very different.

总而言之，即使这三种产品似乎提供相同的功能，但它们处理事物的方式也大不相同。

Optimizely gives you lots of possibilities if you don’t mind coding some stuff together, while Visual Website Optimizer is more click-and-play. VWO comes with an extra tool for heatmap tracking, which is a nice feature but too limited. You can use both tools for both basic (changing elements) and advanced (filtering) experiments. But when it comes to reporting there is still room to improve. Documentation for both products is excellent, even if you just want to be educated on the different concepts of A/B testing.

如果您不介意一起编写某些内容，Optimizely将为您提供很多可能性，而Visual Website Optimizer则具有更多的即点即玩功能。 VWO附带了一个额外的工具来进行热图跟踪，这是一个不错的功能，但是太有限了。 您可以将两种工具都用于基本(更改元素)和高级(过滤)实验。 但是，就报告而言，仍有改进的空间。 即使您只想接受有关A / B测试不同概念的知识，这两种产品的文档也非常出色。

With both products, it still feels like I’m missing important information though. Let’s take visitor origin for example. I can exclude certain segments of visitors so I can tell where they are not coming from, but wouldn’t it be nice to see if UK and US visitors are responding the same way to a change, and see that in a chart? Now it requires you to run two separate tests, and use a separate analytics tool. Maybe I’m asking too much here, but I believe there’s lot of potential in these tools since they already know so much about your traffic.

对于这两种产品，我仍然感觉好像缺少重要的信息。 让我们以访客来源为例。 我可以排除某些部分的访问者，这样我就可以分辨出他们不是哪里来的，但是看看英国和美国的访问者是否以相同的方式对更改做出响应，并在图表中看到它们，这不是很好吗？ 现在，它要求您运行两个单独的测试，并使用一个单独的分析工具。 也许我在这里要问的太多了，但是我相信这些工具有很大的潜力，因为它们已经非常了解您的流量了。

Both offer a free 30-day trial, so I encourage you to run some tests yourself.

两者都提供30天的免费试用期，因此我鼓励您自己进行一些测试。

Google Analytics Content Experiments is fully integrated with the rest of the GA suite, but is rather limited in the way tests are performed. It also requires more manual actions to make the adjustments, and you need to be patient before seeing results. But once you’ve set up a nice set of goals or funnels, it’s a great (and free) tool to use.

Google Analytics(分析)内容实验已与Google Analytics(分析)套件的其余部分完全集成，但是在执行测试的方式上受到很大限制。 它还需要更多的手动操作来进行调整，并且在看到结果之前需要耐心等待。 但是，一旦您设置了一套不错的目标或渠道，它便是一个很棒的(免费)工具。

If you’ve used any of these or know of another tool, please let us know in the comments.

如果您已使用其中任何一种或了解其他工具，请在评论中告知我们。

翻译自: https://www.sitepoint.com/3-ab-testing-tools-compared/

a/b 工具test