Recherche avancée

Sur d’autres sites (2714)

• Google Analytics 4 (GA4) vs Universal Analytics (UA)

  24 janvier 2022, par Erin — Analytics Tips

  March 2022 Update : It’s official ! Google announced that Universal Analytics will no longer process any new data as of 1 July 2023. Google is now pushing Universal Analytics users to switch to the latest version of GA – Google Analytics 4. 

  Currently, Google Analytics 4 is unable to accept historical data from Universal Analytics. Users need to take action before July 2022, to ensure they have 12 months of data built up before the sunset of Universal Analytics

  So how do Universal Analytics and Google Analytics 4 compare ? And what alternative options do you have ? Let’s dive in. 

  In this blog, we’ll cover :

  What is Google Analytics 4 ? 

  In October 2020, Google launched Google Analytics 4, a completely redesigned analytics platform. This follows on from the previous version known as Universal Analytics (or UA).

  Amongst its touted benefits, GA4 promises a completely new way to model data and even the ability to predict future revenue. 

  However, the reception of GA4 has been largely negative. In fact, some users from the digital marketing community have said that GA4 is awful, unusable and so bad it can bring you to tears.

  

  

  Google Analytics 4 vs Universal Analytics

  There are some pretty big differences between Google Analytics 4 and Universal Analytics but for this blog, we’ll cover the top three.

  1. Redesigned user interface (UI)

  GA4 features a completely redesigned UI to Universal Analytics’ popular interface. This dramatic change has left many users in confusion and fuelled some users to declare that “most of the time you are going round in circles to find what you’re looking for.”

  

  2. Event-based tracking

  Google Analytics 4 also brings with it a new data model which is purely event-based. This event-based model moves away from the typical “pageview” metric that underpins Universal Analytics.

  3. Machine learning insights

  Google Analytics 4 promises to “predict the future behavior of your users” with their machine-learning-powered predictive metrics. This feature can “use shared aggregated and anonymous data to improve model quality”. Sounds powerful, right ?

  Unfortunately, it only works if at least 1,000 returning users triggered the relevant predictive condition over a seven-day period. Also, if the model isn’t sustained over a “period of time” then it won’t work. And according to Google, if “the model quality for your property falls below the minimum threshold, then Analytics will stop updating the corresponding predictions”.

  This means GA4’s machine learning insights probably won’t work for the majority of analytics users.

  Ultimately, GA4 is just not ready to replace Google’s Universal Analytics for most users. There are too many missing features.

  What’s missing in Google Analytics 4 ?

  Quite a lot. Even though it offers a completely new approach to analytics, there are a lot of key features and functions missing in GA4.

  Behavior Flow

  The Behavior Flow report in Universal Analytics helps to visualise the path users take from one page or Event to the next. It’s extremely useful when you’re looking for quick and clear insight. But it no longer exists in Google Analytics 4, and instead, two new overcomplicated reports have been introduced to replace it – funnel exploration report and path exploration report.

  The decision to remove this critical report will leave many users feeling disappointed and frustrated. 

  Limitations on custom dimensions

  You can create custom dimensions in Google Analytics 4 to capture advanced information. For example, if a user reads a blog post you can supplement that data with custom dimensions like author name or blog post length. But, you can only use up to 50, and for some that will make functionality like this almost pointless.

  Machine learning (ML) limitations

  Google Analytics 4 promises powerful ML insights to predict the likelihood of users converting based on their behaviors. The problem ? You need 1,000 returning users in one week. For most small-medium businesses this just isn’t possible.

  And if you do get this level of traffic in a week, there’s another hurdle. According to Google, if “the model quality for your property falls below the minimum threshold, then GA will stop updating the corresponding predictions.” To add insult to injury Google suggests that this might make all ML insights unavailable. But they can’t say for certain… 

  Views

  One cornerstone of Universal Analytics is the ability to configure views. Views allow you to set certain analytics environments for testing or cleaning up data by filtering out internal traffic, for example. 

  Views are great for quickly and easily filtering data. Preset views that contain just the information you want to see are the ideal analytics setup for smaller businesses, casual users, and do-it-yourself marketing departments.

  

  There are a few workarounds but they’re “messy [,] annoying and clunky,” says a disenfranchised Redditor.

  Another helpful Reddit user stumbled upon an unhelpful statement from Google. Google says that they “do not offer [the views] feature in Google Analytics 4 but are planning similar functionality in the future.” There’s no specific date yet though.

  Bounce rate

  Those that rely on bounce rate to understand their site’s performance will be disappointed to find out that bounce rate is also not available in GA4. Instead, Google is pushing a new metric known as “Engagement Rate”. With this metric, Google now uses their own formula to establish if a visitor is engaged with a site.

  Lack of integration

  Currently, GA4 isn’t ready to integrate with many core digital marketing tools and doesn’t accept non-Google data imports. This makes it difficult for users to analyse ROI and ROAS for campaigns measured in other tools. 

  Content Grouping

  Yet another key feature that Google has done away with is Content Grouping. However, as with some of the other missing features in GA4, there is a workaround, but it’s not simple for casual users to implement. In order to keep using Content Grouping, you’ll need to create event-scoped custom dimensions.

  Annotations 

  A key feature of Universal Analytics is the ability to add custom Annotations in views. Annotations are useful for marking dates that site changes were made for analysis in the future. However, Google has removed the Annotations feature and offered no alternative or workaround.

  Historical data imports are not available

  The new approach to data modelling in GA4 adds new functionality that UA can’t match. However, it also means that you can’t import historical UA data into GA4. 

  Google’s suggestion for this one ? Keep running UA with GA4 and duplicate events for your GA4 property. Now you will have two different implementations running alongside each other and doing slightly different things. Which doesn’t sound like a particularly streamlined solution, and adds another level of complexity.

  Should you switch to Google Analytics 4 ?

  So the burning question is, should you switch from Universal Analytics to Google Analytics 4 ? It really depends on whether you have the available resources and if you believe this tool is still right for your organisation. At the time of writing, GA4 is not ready for day-to-day use in most organisations.

  If you’re a casual user or someone looking for quick, clear insights then you will likely struggle with the switch to GA4. It appears that the new Google Analytics 4 has been designed for enterprise-scale businesses with large internal teams of analysts.

  

  Unfortunately, for most casual users, business owners and do-it-yourself marketers there are complex workarounds and time-consuming implementations to handle. Ultimately, it’s up to you to decide if the effort to migrate and relearn GA is worth it.

  Right now is the best time to draw the line and make a decision to either switch to GA4 or look for a better alternative to Google Analytics.

  Google Analytics alternative

  Matomo is one of the best Google Analytics alternatives offering an easy to use design with enhanced insights on our Cloud, On-Premise and on Matomo for WordPress solutions. 

  

  Matomo is an open-source analytics solution that provides a comprehensive, user-friendly and compliance-focused alternative to both Google Analytics 4 and Universal Analytics.

  The key benefits of using Matomo include :

  • Easy to use – Matomo provides a simpler interface and understandable KPIs. See for yourself with our live demo. 
  • Compliance – Future-proof your tech stack for looming privacy regulations. Matomo covers all of your ePrivacy, GDPR, HIPAA, CCPA, and PECR data compliance requirements. 
  • Data privacy and ownership – Your analytics data is 100% yours to own, with no external parties looking in.
  • Flexible, all-in-one solution – Get features like A/B Testing, Heatmaps, Session Recordings, SEO Web Vitals, Tag Manager, Media Analytics, Search Engine Keyword Performance, custom reports and much more. 
  • Integrations galore – Expand your Matomo capabilities by adding integrations from over 100 leading technologies.

  Plus, unlike GA4, Matomo will accept your historical data from UA so you don’t have to start all over again. Check out our 7 step guide to migrating from Google Analytics to find out how.

  Getting started with Matomo is easy. Check out our live demo and start your free 21-day trial. No credit card required.

  In addition to the limitations and complexities of GA4, there are many other significant drawbacks to using Google Analytics.

  Google’s data ethics are a growing concern of many and it is often discussed in the mainstream media. In addition, GA is not GDPR compliant by default and has resulted in 200k+ data protection cases against websites using GA.

  What’s more, the data that Google Analytics actually provides its end-users is extrapolated from samples. GA’s data sampling model means that once you’ve collected a certain amount of data Google Analytics will make educated guesses rather than use up its server space collecting your actual data. 

  The reasons to switch from Google Analytics are rising each day. 

  Wrap up

  The now required update to GA4 will add new layers of complexity, which will leave many casual web analytics users and marketers wondering if there’s a better way. Luckily there is. Get clear insights quickly and easily with Matomo – start your 21-day free trial now.

• C++ ffmpeg Specified pixel format is invalid or not supported

  4 septembre 2022, par Turgut

  So I have a program that reads an opengl window and encodes the read data as a video. Now through a series of experimentation I have learned that the bit format of my glfw window is 8:8:8 as returned by glfwGetVideoMode(monitor). So I use this function to read the window :

  


  glReadPixels(0, 0,gl_width, gl_height,GL_RGBA, GL_UNSIGNED_BYTE, (GLvoid*) Buffer);

  


  and I simply encode it in the AV_PIX_FMT_YUV420P format.

  


  Under normal circumstances this method works just fine. However, when I actually run the program, the output I get, as opposed to what I can see in the glfw window, is really low resolution and a bit pixelated.

  


  Here is what my GLFW window looks like :


  


  Now this is what I want it to look like. It looks just fine on the opengl window, and I encode it directly without altering Buffer.

  


  And here is what the encoded result, test.mp4 looks like when I run it using mplayer or similar software :

  


  

  


  It's a lot more blurry and pixelated compare to the GLFW window. With some experimentation and following an answer to another question I asked, I us avcodec_find_best_pix_fmt_of_list((*codec)->pix_fmts, AV_PIX_FMT_RGBA, 1, &ret) and it returned 13. Which led me to believe using AV_PIX_FMT_YUVJ422P is the best option for this convertion to not have a blurry/pixelated result. However, no matter which function I pass, every single format gives off an error except AV_PIX_FMT_YUV420P. The error is :

  


  [mpeg4 @ 0x558e74f47900] Specified pixel format yuvj422p is invalid or not supported


  


  I have no idea why this is happening, as the format is bound to a define and it is changed throughout the entire program when I change the define.

  


  Here is my encoder so far (I have trimmed some parts) :

  


  video_encoder.cpp :

  


  int video_encoder::write_frame(AVFormatContext *fmt_ctx, AVCodecContext *c,
                       AVStream *st, AVFrame *frame, AVPacket *pkt)
    {
    int ret;
    // Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value
    // Use of uninitialised value of size 8
    // send the frame to the encoder

    // Error is about c.
    ret = avcodec_send_frame(c, frame);

    if (ret < 0) {
        std::cout << "Error sending a frame to the encoder: " << ret << std::endl;
        exit(1);
    }

    while (ret >= 0) {
        ret = avcodec_receive_packet(c, pkt);

        if (ret == AVERROR(EAGAIN) || ret == AVERROR_EOF)
            break;
        else if (ret < 0) {
            std::cout << "Error encoding a frame: " << ret << std::endl;
            exit(1);
        }

        /* rescale output packet timestamp values from codec to stream timebase */
        av_packet_rescale_ts(pkt, c->time_base, st->time_base);
        pkt->stream_index = st->index;

        /* Write the compressed frame to the media file. */
        //log_packet(fmt_ctx, pkt);

        //std::cout << "Packet: " << pkt << std::endl;

        ret = av_interleaved_write_frame(fmt_ctx, pkt);

        /* pkt is now blank (av_interleaved_write_frame() takes ownership of
         * its contents and resets pkt), so that no unreferencing is necessary.
         * This would be different if one used av_write_frame(). */
        if (ret < 0) {
            std::cout << "Error while writing output packet: " << ret << std::endl;
            exit(1);
        }
    }

    return ret == AVERROR_EOF ? 1 : 0;
}


/* Add an output stream. */
void video_encoder::add_stream(OutputStream *ost, AVFormatContext *oc,
                       const AVCodec **codec,
                       enum AVCodecID codec_id)
{
    AVCodecContext *c;
    int i;

    /* find the encoder */
    *codec = avcodec_find_encoder(codec_id);
    
    if (!(*codec)) {
        fprintf(stderr, "Could not find encoder for '%s'\n",
                avcodec_get_name(codec_id));
        exit(1);
    }

    ost->tmp_pkt = av_packet_alloc();

    if (!ost->tmp_pkt) {
        fprintf(stderr, "Could not allocate AVPacket\n");
        exit(1);
    }

    ost->st = avformat_new_stream(oc, NULL);
    if (!ost->st) {
        fprintf(stderr, "Could not allocate stream\n");
        exit(1);
    }
    ost->st->id = oc->nb_streams-1;
    c = avcodec_alloc_context3(*codec);
    if (!c) {
        fprintf(stderr, "Could not alloc an encoding context\n");
        exit(1);
    }
    ost->enc = c;


    switch ((*codec)->type) {
    case AVMEDIA_TYPE_AUDIO:
        ...
    case AVMEDIA_TYPE_VIDEO:
        c->codec_id = codec_id;

        c->bit_rate = 10000;
        /* Resolution must be a multiple of two. */
        c->width    = width;
        c->height   = height;
        /* timebase: This is the fundamental unit of time (in seconds) in terms
         * of which frame timestamps are represented. For fixed-fps content,
         * timebase should be 1/framerate and timestamp increments should be
         * identical to 1. */
        ost->st->time_base = (AVRational){ 1, STREAM_FRAME_RATE }; // *frame_rate
        c->time_base       = ost->st->time_base;

        c->gop_size      = 7; /* emit one intra frame every twelve frames at most */
        c->pix_fmt       = STREAM_PIX_FMT;
        //if (c->codec_id == AV_CODEC_ID_MPEG2VIDEO) 
        //    c->max_b_frames = 2;
        if (c->codec_id == AV_CODEC_ID_MPEG1VIDEO) {
            /* Needed to avoid using macroblocks in which some coeffs overflow.
             * This does not happen with normal video, it just happens here as
             * the motion of the chroma plane does not match the luma plane. */
            c->mb_decision = 2;
        }

        if ((*codec)->pix_fmts){
            //c->pix_fmt = (*codec)->pix_fmts[0];
            std::cout << "NEW FORMAT : " << c->pix_fmt << std::endl;
        }

        int ret;
        avcodec_find_best_pix_fmt_of_list((*codec)->pix_fmts, AV_PIX_FMT_RGBA, 1, &ret);
        std::cout << "Desired format is: " << ret << std::endl;
        break;
    }
     

    /* Some formats want stream headers to be separate. */
    if (oc->oformat->flags & AVFMT_GLOBALHEADER)
        c->flags |= AV_CODEC_FLAG_GLOBAL_HEADER;
}

/**************************************************************/
/* video output */

AVFrame* video_encoder::alloc_picture(enum AVPixelFormat pix_fmt, int width, int height)
{
    AVFrame *picture;
    int ret;

    picture = av_frame_alloc();
    if (!picture)
        return NULL;

    picture->format = pix_fmt;
    picture->width  = width;
    picture->height = height;

    /* allocate the buffers for the frame data */
    ret = av_frame_get_buffer(picture, 0);
    if (ret < 0) {
        fprintf(stderr, "Could not allocate frame data.\n");
        exit(1);
    }

    return picture;
}

void video_encoder::open_video(AVFormatContext *oc, const AVCodec *codec,
                       OutputStream *ost, AVDictionary *opt_arg)
{
    int ret;
    AVCodecContext *c = ost->enc;
    AVDictionary *opt = NULL;
    av_dict_copy(&opt, opt_arg, 0);
    /* open the codec */
    ret = avcodec_open2(c, codec, &opt);
    av_dict_free(&opt);
    if (ret < 0) {
        fprintf(stderr, "Could not open video codec: %s\n", ret);
        exit(1);
    }

    /* allocate and init a re-usable frame */
    ost->frame = alloc_picture(c->pix_fmt, c->width, c->height);
    if (!ost->frame) {
        fprintf(stderr, "Could not allocate video frame\n");
        exit(1);
    }

    /* If the output format is not YUV420P, then a temporary YUV420P
     * picture is needed too. It is then converted to the required
     * output format. */
    ost->tmp_frame = NULL;


    /* copy the stream parameters to the muxer */
    ret = avcodec_parameters_from_context(ost->st->codecpar, c);
    if (ret < 0) {
        fprintf(stderr, "Could not copy the stream parameters\n");
        exit(1);
    }
}


void video_encoder::set_frame_yuv_from_rgb(AVFrame *frame, struct SwsContext *sws_context) {
    const int in_linesize[1] = { 4 * width };
    //uint8_t* dest[4] = { rgb_data, NULL, NULL, NULL };

    
    sws_context = sws_getContext(
            width, height, AV_PIX_FMT_RGBA,
            width, height, STREAM_PIX_FMT,
            SCALE_FLAGS, 0, 0, 0);

    sws_scale(sws_context, (const uint8_t * const *)&rgb_data, in_linesize, 0,
            height, frame->data, frame->linesize);
}

AVFrame* video_encoder::get_video_frame(OutputStream *ost)
{
    AVCodecContext *c = ost->enc;
    /* check if we want to generate more frames */
    if (av_compare_ts(ost->next_pts, c->time_base,
                      (float) STREAM_DURATION / 1000, (AVRational){ 1, 1 }) > 0)
        return NULL;

    /* when we pass a frame to the encoder, it may keep a reference to it
     * internally; make sure we do not overwrite it here */
    if (av_frame_make_writable(ost->frame) < 0)
        exit(1);

        
    set_frame_yuv_from_rgb(ost->frame, ost->sws_ctx);
    
    
    ost->frame->pts = ost->next_pts++;

    return ost->frame;
}

/*
 * encode one video frame and send it to the muxer
 * return 1 when encoding is finished, 0 otherwise
 */
int video_encoder::write_video_frame(AVFormatContext *oc, OutputStream *ost)
{
    return write_frame(oc, ost->enc, ost->st, get_video_frame(ost), ost->tmp_pkt);
}

void video_encoder::close_stream(AVFormatContext *oc, OutputStream *ost)
{
    avcodec_free_context(&ost->enc);
    av_frame_free(&ost->frame);
    av_frame_free(&ost->tmp_frame);
    av_packet_free(&ost->tmp_pkt);
    //sws_freeContext(ost->sws_ctx);
    //swr_free(&ost->swr_ctx);
}

/**************************************************************/
/* media file output */

void video_encoder::set_encode_framebuffer(uint8_t* data, bool audio_only)
{
    rgb_data = data;
}

video_encoder::~video_encoder()
{
    av_write_trailer(enc_inf.oc);

    /* Close each codec. */
    if (enc_inf.have_video)
        close_stream(enc_inf.oc, &enc_inf.video_st);

    if (!(enc_inf.fmt->flags & AVFMT_NOFILE))
        /* Close the output file. */
        avio_closep(&enc_inf.oc->pb);

    /* free the stream */
    avformat_free_context(enc_inf.oc);
    std::cout << "Done, closing." << std::endl;  
}

bool video_encoder::encode_one_frame()
{
    if (enc_inf.encode_video || enc_inf.encode_audio) {
        /* select the stream to encode */
       if (enc_inf.encode_video &&
            (!enc_inf.encode_audio || av_compare_ts(enc_inf.video_st.next_pts, enc_inf.video_st.enc->time_base,
                                            enc_inf.audio_st.next_pts, enc_inf.audio_st.enc->time_base) <= 0)) {
            enc_inf.encode_video = !write_video_frame(enc_inf.oc, &enc_inf.video_st);
            return true;
        } 
    }
    return false;
}


video_encoder::video_encoder(int w, int h, float fps, unsigned int duration) 
 :width(w), height(h), STREAM_FRAME_RATE(fps), STREAM_DURATION(duration)
{
    //std::filesystem::create_directory("media"); 

    //std::string as_str = "./output/" + std::string(getenv ("OUTPUT_UUID")) + ".mp4";
    std::string as_str = "./output/video.mp4";

    char* filename = const_cast(as_str.c_str());
    enc_inf.video_st, enc_inf.audio_st = (struct OutputStream) { 0 };
    enc_inf.video_st.next_pts = 1; 
    enc_inf.audio_st.next_pts = 1;
    enc_inf.encode_audio, enc_inf.encode_video = 0;
    int ret;
    int i;
    //rgb_data = (uint8_t*)malloc( 48 * sizeof(uint8_t) );

    /* allocate the output media context */
    avformat_alloc_output_context2(&enc_inf.oc, NULL, NULL, filename);

    if (!enc_inf.oc) {
        //VI_ERROR("Could not deduce output format from file extension: using MPEG.\n");
        avformat_alloc_output_context2(&enc_inf.oc, NULL, "mpeg", filename);
    }
    if (!enc_inf.oc)
        std::cout << "FAILED" << std::endl;
        //return 1;

    enc_inf.fmt = enc_inf.oc->oformat;

    /* Add the audio and video streams using the default format codecs
     * and initialize the codecs. */
    if (enc_inf.fmt->video_codec != AV_CODEC_ID_NONE) {
        add_stream(&enc_inf.video_st, enc_inf.oc, &video_codec, enc_inf.fmt->video_codec);
        enc_inf.have_video = 1;
        enc_inf.encode_video = 1;
    }

    /* Now that all the parameters are set, we can open the audio and
     * video codecs and allocate the necessary encode buffers. */
    if (enc_inf.have_video)
        open_video(enc_inf.oc, video_codec, &enc_inf.video_st, opt);

    /* open the output file, if needed */
    if (!(enc_inf.fmt->flags & AVFMT_NOFILE)) {
        ret = avio_open(&enc_inf.oc->pb, filename, AVIO_FLAG_WRITE);
        if (ret < 0) {
            //VI_ERROR("Could not open '%s': %s\n", filename, ret);
            //return 1;
        }
    }

    /* Write the stream header, if any. */
    ret = avformat_write_header(enc_inf.oc, &opt);
    if (ret < 0) {
        VI_ERROR("Error occurred when opening output file:");
        //return 1;
    }
    
    //return 0;
}


  


  video_encoder.h :

  


  #define STREAM_PIX_FMT AV_PIX_FMT_YUV420P /* default pix_fmt */

#define SCALE_FLAGS SWS_SPLINE

/* The output bit rate in bit/s */
#define OUTPUT_BIT_RATE 96000
/* The number of output channels */
#define OUTPUT_CHANNELS 2

typedef struct OutputStream {
    AVStream *st;
    AVCodecContext *enc;

    /* pts of the next frame that will be generated */
    int64_t next_pts;
    int samples_count;

    AVFrame *frame;
    AVFrame *tmp_frame;

    AVPacket *tmp_pkt;

    float t, tincr, tincr2;

    struct SwsContext *sws_ctx;
    struct SwrContext *swr_ctx;
} OutputStream;
        typedef struct {
            OutputStream video_st, audio_st;
            const AVOutputFormat *fmt;
            AVFormatContext *oc;
            int have_video, have_audio, encode_video, encode_audio;
            std::string name;
        } encode_info;


  


  Again, changing STREAM_PIX_FMT anything other than AV_PIX_FMT_YUV420P causes the program to give the error.

  


  What is the cause of this and how can I fix this ? Also am I on the right track for fixing the pixelation problem ? I'm using ubuntu.

  


• Google Optimize vs Matomo A/B Testing : Everything You Need to Know

  17 mars 2023, par Erin — Analytics Tips

  Google Optimize is a popular A/B testing tool marketers use to validate the performance of different marketing assets, website design elements and promotional offers. 

  But by September 2023, Google will sunset both free and paid versions of the Optimize product. 

  If you’re searching for an equally robust, but GDPR compliant, privacy-friendly alternative to Google Optimize, have a look at Matomo A/B Testing. 

  Integrated with our analytics platform and conversion rate optimisation (CRO) tools, Matomo allows you to run A/B and A/B/n tests without any usage caps or compromises in user privacy.

  Disclaimer : Please note that the information provided in this blog post is for general informational purposes only and is not intended to provide legal advice. Every situation is unique and requires a specific legal analysis. If you have any questions regarding the legal implications of any matter, please consult with your legal team or seek advice from a qualified legal professional.

  Google Optimize vs Matomo : Key Capabilities Compared 

  This guide shows how Matomo A/B testing stacks against Google Optimize in terms of features, reporting, integrations and pricing.

  Supported Platforms 

  Google Optimize supports experiments for dynamic websites and single-page mobile apps only. 

  If you want to run split tests in mobile apps, you’ll have to do so via Firebase — Google’s app development platform. It also has a free tier but paid usage-based subscription kicks in after your product(s) reaches a certain usage threshold. 

  Google Optimize also doesn’t support CRO experiments for web or desktop applications, email campaigns or paid ad campaigns.Matomo A/B Testing, in contrast, allows you to run experiments in virtually every channel. We have three installation options — using JavaScript, server-side technology, or our mobile tracking SDK. These allow you to run split tests in any type of web or mobile app (including games), a desktop product, or on your website. Also, you can do different email marketing tests (e.g., compare subject line variants).

  A/B Testing 

  A/B testing (split testing) is the core feature of both products. Marketers use A/B testing to determine which creative elements such as website microcopy, button placements and banner versions, resonate better with target audiences. 

  You can benchmark different versions against one another to determine which variation resonates more with users. Or you can test an A version against B, C, D and beyond. This is called A/B/n testing. 

  Both Matomo A/B testing and Google Optimize let you test either separate page elements or two completely different landing page designs, using redirect tests. You can show different variants to different user groups (aka apply targeting criteria). For example, activate tests only for certain device types, locations or types of on-site behaviour. 

  The advantage of Matomo is that we don’t limit the number of concurrent experiments you can run. With Google Optimize, you’re limited to 5 simultaneous experiments. Likewise, 

  Matomo lets you select an unlimited number of experiment objectives, whereas Google caps the maximum choice to 3 predefined options per experiment. 

  Objectives are criteria the underlying statistical model will use to determine the best-performing version. Typically, marketers use metrics such as page views, session duration, bounce rate or generated revenue as conversion goals. 

  

  Multivariate testing (MVT)

  Multivariate testing (MVT) allows you to “pack” several A/B tests into one active experiment. In other words : You create a stack of variants to determine which combination drives the best marketing outcomes. 

  For example, an MVT experiment can include five versions of a web page, where each has a different slogan, product image, call-to-action, etc. Visitors are then served with a different variation. The tracking code collects data on their behaviours and desired outcomes (objectives) and reports the results.

  MVT saves marketers time as it’s a great alternative to doing separate A/B tests for each variable. Both Matomo and Google Optimize support this feature. However, Google Optimize caps the number of possible combinations at 16, whereas Matomo has no limits. 

  Redirect Tests

  Redirect tests, also known as split URL tests, allow you to serve two entirely different web page versions to users and compare their performance. This option comes in handy when you’re redesigning your website or want to test a localised page version in a new market. 

  Also, redirect tests are a great way to validate the performance of bottom-of-the-funnel (BoFU) pages as a checkout page (for eCommerce websites), a pricing page (for SaaS apps) or a contact/booking form (for a B2B service businesses). 

  You can do split URL tests with Google Optimize and Matomo A/B Testing. 

  Experiment Design 

  Google Optimize provides a visual editor for making simple page changes to your website (e.g., changing button colour or adding several headline variations). You can then preview the changes before publishing an experiment. For more complex experiments (e.g., testing different page block sequences), you’ll have to codify experiments using custom JavaScript, HTML and CSS.

  In Matomo, all A/B tests are configured on the server-side (i.e., by editing your website’s raw HTML) or client-side via JavaScript. Afterwards, you use the Matomo interface to start or schedule an experiment, set objectives and view reports. 

  Experiment Configuration 

  Marketers know how complex customer journeys can be. Multiple factors — from location and device to time of the day and discount size — can impact your conversion rates. That’s why a great CRO app allows you to configure multiple tracking conditions. 

  Matomo A/B testing comes with granular controls. First of all, you can decide which percentage of total web visitors participate in any given experiment. By default, the number is set to 100%, but you can change it to any other option. 

  Likewise, you can change which percentage of traffic each variant gets in an experiment. For example, your original version can get 30% of traffic, while options A and B receive 40% each. We also allow users to specify custom parameters for experiment participation. You can only show your variants to people in specific geo-location or returning visitors only. 

  Finally, you can select any type of meaningful objective to evaluate each variant’s performance. With Matomo, you can either use standard website analytics metrics (e.g., total page views, bounce rate, CTR, visit direction, etc) or custom goals (e.g., form click, asset download, eCommerce order, etc). 

  In other words : You’re in charge of deciding on your campaign targeting criteria, duration and evaluation objectives.

  A free Google Optimize account comes with three main types of user targeting options : 

  • Geo-targeting at city, region, metro and country levels. 

  • Technology targeting  by browser, OS or device type, first-party cookie, etc. 
  • Behavioural targeting based on metrics like “time since first arrival” and “page referrer” (referral traffic source). 

  Users can also configure other types of tracking scenarios (for example to only serve tests to signed-in users), using condition-based rules. 

  Reporting 

  Both Matomo and Google Optimize use different statistical models to evaluate which variation performs best. 

  Matomo relies on statistical hypothesis testing, which we use to count unique visitors and report on conversion rates. We analyse all user data (with no data sampling applied), meaning you get accurate reporting, based on first-hand data, rather than deductions. For that reason, we ask users to avoid drawing conclusions before their experiment participation numbers reach a statistically significant result. Typically, we recommend running an experiment for at least several business cycles to get a comprehensive report. 

  Google Optimize, in turn, uses Bayesian inference — a statistical method, which relies on a random sample of users to compare the performance rates of each creative against one another. While a Bayesian model generates CRO reports faster and at a bigger scale, it’s based on inferences.

  Model developers need to have the necessary skills to translate subjective prior beliefs about the probability of a certain event into a mathematical formula. Since Google Optimize is a proprietary tool, you cannot audit the underlying model design and verify its accuracy. In other words, you trust that it was created with the right judgement. 

  In comparison, Matomo started as an open-source project, and our source code can be audited independently by anyone at any time. 

  Another reporting difference to mind is the reporting delays. Matomo Cloud generates A/B reports within 6 hours and in only 1 hour for Matomo On-Premise. Google Optimize, in turn, requires 12 hours from the first experiment setup to start reporting on results. 

  When you configure a test experiment and want to quickly verify that everything is set up correctly, this can be an inconvenience.

  User Privacy & GDPR Compliance 

  Google Optimize works in conjunction with Google Analytics, which isn’t GDPR compliant. 

  For all website traffic from the EU, you’re therefore obliged to show a cookie consent banner. The kicker, however, is that you can only show an Optimize experiment after the user gives consent to tracking. If the user doesn’t, they will only see an original page version. Considering that almost 40% of global consumers reject cookie consent banners, this can significantly affect your results.

  This renders Google Optimize mostly useless in the EU since it would only allow you to run tests with a fraction ( 60%) of EU traffic — and even less if you apply any extra targeting criteria. 

  In comparison, Matomo is fully GDPR compliant. Therefore, our users are legally exempt from displaying cookie-consent banners in most EU markets (with Germany and the UK being an exception). Since Matomo A/B testing is part of Matomo web analytics, you don’t have to worry about GDPR compliance or breaches in user privacy. 

  Digital Experience Intelligence 

  You can get comprehensive statistical data on variants’ performance with Google Optimize. But you don’t get further insights on why some tests are more successful than others. 

  Matomo enables you to collect more insights with two extra features :

  • User session recordings : Monitor how users behave on different page versions. Observe clicks, mouse movements, scrolls, page changes, and form interactions to better understand the users’ cumulative digital experience. 
  • Heatmaps : Determine which elements attract the most users’ attention to fine-tune your split tests. With a standard CRO tool, you only assume that a certain page element does matter for most users. A heatmap can help you determine for sure. 

  Both of these features are bundled into your Matomo Cloud subscription. 

  Integrations 

  Both Matomo and Google Optimize integrate with multiple other tools. 

  Google Optimize has native integrations with other products in the marketing family — GA, Google Ads, Google Tag Manager, Google BigQuery, Accelerated Mobile Pages (AMP), and Firebase. Separately, other popular marketing apps have created custom connectors for integrating Google Optimize data. 

  Matomo A/B Testing, in turn, can be combined with other web analytics and CRO features such as Funnels, Multi-Channel Attribution, Tag Manager, Form Analytics, Heatmaps, Session Recording, and more ! 

  You can also conveniently export your website analytics or CRO data using Matomo Analytics API to analyse it in another app. 

  Pricing 

  Google Optimize is a free tool but has usage caps. If you want to schedule more than 5 concurrent experiments or test more than 16 variants at once, you’ll have to upgrade to Optimize 360. Optimize 360 prices aren’t listed publicly but are said to be closer to six figures per year. 

  Matomo A/B Testing is available with every Cloud subscription (starting from €19) and Matomo On-Premise users can also get A/B Testing as a plugin (starting from €199/year). In each case, there are no caps or data limits. 

  Google Optimize vs Matomo A/B Testing : Comparison Table

  Features/capabilities	Google Optimize	Matomo A/B test
  Supported channels	Web	Web, mobile, email, digital campaigns
  A/B testing
  Multivariate testing (MVT)
  Split URL tests
  Web analytics integration	Native with UA/GA4	Native with Matomo You can also migrate historical UA (GA3) data to Matomo
  Audience segmentation	Basic	Advanced
  Geo-targeting
  Technology targeting
  Behavioural targeting	Basic	Advanced
  Reporting model	Bayesian analysis	Statistical hypothesis testing
  Report availability	Within 12 hours after setup	6 hours for Matomo Cloud 1 hour for Matomo On-Premise
  Heatmaps		Included with Matomo Cloud
  Session recordings		Included with Matomo Cloud
  GDPR compliance
  Support	Self-help desk on a free tier	Self-help guides, user forum, email
  Price	Free limited tier	From €19 for Cloud subscription From €199/year as plugin for On-Premise

  Final Thoughts : Who Benefits the Most From an A/B Testing Tool ?

  Split testing is an excellent method for validating various assumptions about your target customers. 

  With A/B testing tools you get a data-backed answer to research hypotheses such as “How different pricing affects purchases ?”, “What contact button placement generates more clicks ?”, “Which registration form performs best with new app subscribers ?” and more. 

  Such insights can be game-changing when you’re trying to improve your demand-generation efforts or conversion rates at the BoFu stage. But to get meaningful results from CRO tests, you need to select measurable, representative objectives.

  For example, split testing different pricing strategies for low-priced, frequently purchased products makes sense as you can run an experiment for a couple of weeks to get a statistically relevant sample. 

  But if you’re in a B2B SaaS product, where the average sales cycle takes weeks (or months) to finalise and things like “time-sensitive discounts” or “one-time promos” don’t really work, getting adequate CRO data will be harder. 

  To see tangible results from CRO, you’ll need to spend more time on test ideation than implementation. Your team needs to figure out : which elements to test, in what order, and why. 

  Effective CRO tests are designed for a specific part of the funnel and assume that you’re capable of effectively identifying and tracking conversions (goals) at the selected stage. This alone can be a complex task since not all customer journeys are alike. For SaaS websites, using a goal like “free trial account registration” can be a good starting point.

  A good test also produces a meaningful difference between the proposed variant and the original version. As Nima Yassini, Partner at Deloitte Digital, rightfully argues :

  “I see people experimenting with the goal of creating an uplift. There’s nothing wrong with that, but if you’re only looking to get wins you will be crushed when the first few tests fail. The industry average says that only one in five to seven tests win, so you need to be prepared to lose most of the time”.

  In many cases, CRO tests don’t provide the data you expected (e.g., people equally click the blue and green buttons). In this case, you need to start building your hypothesis from scratch. 

  At the same time, it’s easy to get caught up in optimising for “vanity metrics” — such that look good in the report, but don’t quite match your marketing objectives. For example, better email headline variations can improve your email open rates. But if users don’t proceed to engage with the email content (e.g. click-through to your website or use a provided discount code), your efforts are still falling short. 

  That’s why developing a baseline strategy is important before committing to an A/B testing tool. Google Optimize appealed to many users because it’s free and allows you to test your split test strategy cost-effectively. 

  With its upcoming depreciation, many marketers are very committed to a more expensive A/B tool (especially when they’re not fully sure about their CRO strategy and its results). 

  Matomo A/B testing is a cost-effective, GDPR-compliant alternative to Google Optimize with a low learning curve and extra competitive features. 

  Discover if Matomo A/B Testing is the ideal Google Optimize alternative for your organization with our free 21-day trial. No credit card required.