Amplitude Web Experimentation Reviews & Product Details

I really like how easy it is to set up and use. It walks you through a really structured setup of the experiment to make sure you've considered every variable necessary to make it a success. We also use Amplitude for product experiments, so it allows our product and marketing teams to see what each other is working on at any given time. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I wish you could more easily move web components around. We decided to go with Amplitude for this because the A/B test add-on for our website platform was too expensive, but this really doesn't go as far as we need it to in order to really make it the best possible tool for us. It's pretty limited to edits that you can make within the existing structure. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

The web experimentation is incredibly intuitive and easy to use for a product manager. It was super easy to setup, and the ability to run my own experiments on content and images without having to involve my development team makes this tool a big win for our ability to scale. We run tests every 2 weeks without issue, a pace we've never hit before with other tools. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Web experimentation isn't always the most exact way to target our users. Many times we're trying to target specific cohorts, which requires a feature experiment. But when we want to run an experiment that requires both URL query parameters and a specific cohort, we're sort of lost. Feature experiments are much more consistent and reliable, but more difficult to target. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

The idea that the testing platform is connected directly to Amplitude analytics Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

The fact that the testing platform isn't allowing deep dive analysis that leverage the existing reporting feature of amplitude analytics and we have experienced a lot of data issues misleading us into the wrong outcome - the customer support that hasn't been very reactive and our account manager being very dismissive about it ("it is free what do you expect"?). The testing tool despite being integrated in Amplitude very much feels like it is a 3rd party tool that was grafted onto the analytics platform but where the integration wasn't full completed. The tool is not mature enough to compete against the big players on the market and the Amplitude team have very much relied on their customers to be the guinea pigs. I believe it has strong potential however it will require some serious effort to make it a reliable and strong contender Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Convenience and intuitiveness as the platform is connected to analytics and all other blades within the same UI.

Easy to get up and running with WYSWYG to setup web experiments with low lift from engineering side.

The agentic capabilities allow clients to setup more tests running at the same time and at a higher frequency.

Seamless integration with Cohorts makes it easy to have data continuing between capabilities within Amplitude. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Its new(er) to amplitude product engineering team so product support takes longer than analytics support. Flicker issues still remain on clients and that puts it technologically weaker compared to competing experiment platforms. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

It takes away the development time, and opens up and all range of possibilities potentially that are in the hands of the team. It's potentially so easy to set up and launch a test. I find one of the strongest use cases with copywriting team. We always have endless discussions about whihc copy to use, low-code experimentation removes this and allow us to simplytest our hypothesis. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

* the tool is affecting our performances on mobile especially, this forced us to limit the use of Web experiments for mobile users, where we have most of the traffic

* we have languages subfolders, so far I haven't found a way to address this issue: basically I need to set up a new experiment for each languages (therefore URL), this reduces A LOT the chances of having enough traffic

* the interface is not yet perfectly functioning, it's not immediate to select items and understand if the changes was actually applied Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Setting it up is very straightforward. The Amplitude AB Testing feature offers a good range of settings and options, making it convenient to use. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I haven't found that yet. So far Experimentation looks good. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

The web experimentation feature gives me the ability to test different configurations on my website without having to implement a lot of functionality. It integrates easily with Next.js and works seamlessly with the feature flags provided by Amplitude. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I think the way experiments are created could be improved — it might become a bit complicated for people who aren’t very technical. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

The ability to run experiments independently of product deployment is particularly compelling. With feature experiments, team members often felt burdened by the need to participate in deployment processes, which had been a key concern. In contrast, web experiments—aside from an initial setup deployment—do not require additional deployments for each experiment, making them highly attractive. The editing interface is also intuitive, allowing team members without technical knowledge to conduct experiments easily, which has significantly improved the speed of experimentation. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

However, there are still several areas that need improvement.

First, some users of web experiments, particularly those without development or HTML knowledge, face difficulties in accurately specifying HTML selectors. For example, a marketing team member once attempted to run a test to change the text within a button. Due to challenges in targeting the exact text element, they discovered that the button text appeared within the 'Edit raw' section of the 'Text' area and tried modifying it there. However, this approach resulted in the button failing to trigger the intended action when clicked, making it unsuitable for the experiment.

Ultimately, the selector had to be manually edited. Since the marketing team member lacked HTML knowledge, this created a significant barrier. The issue was eventually resolved by an analyst with HTML expertise, who provided the appropriate selector for the targeted text element.

It would be helpful to have clearer guidance on how to specify selectors. While class-based selectors are relatively easy to apply, selecting by ID is more difficult and could benefit from improvement.

Additionally, functionalities beyond Display, Visibility, and Text are still difficult to use. For example, in the case of changing colors, it was unclear which specific color elements were being modified. A comprehensive guide or documentation on these features would be highly beneficial. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

The editor experience is simple and to the point.

The setup is straight forward, given you already have your key funnel events tracked.

Time-to-Experiment is very minimal (for very simple changes) Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

The editor is still a little buggy.

HTML editing is difficult to use, even for a developer (on Plus plan). Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I feel it is very easy to use and easy to implement. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I don't find any drawbacks when using the web experimentation. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.