Overview of Google Analytics Alternatives
The most common complaint of Google Analytics is its inaccuracy with calculating bounce rates (Melaugh, 2011). Visitors who spend time on a page reading a blog or watching a video, for example, will show up in a GA report as having spent zero seconds on a site unless they perform another action, such as clicking onto another page in the site (Melaugh, 2011). Another complaint is the steep learning curve to using all of GA’s features (Melaugh, 2011). The following are three alternatives to GA for subscribers who are seeking to overcome these complaints.
Very similar to Goggle Analytics, Clicky provides a comprehensive overview of the number of visitors to a website, visitor actions, bounce rate, traffic sources, and top content and search items in real-time (Hines, 2014). Subscribers can even attach custom data to visitors. What may be more user friendly with Clicky is how it filters data to be able to drill down data that is most important to the user, instead of just providing graphical representations (Melaugh, 20110. Clicky is also known for its ease in creating campaigns and conversion goals to effortlessly measure revenue generated from a website (Hines, 2014). Twitter searches can also be tracked through Clicky (Melaugh, 2011). Heatmaps are another a feature of Clicky, which can be segmented into individual user sessions in real-time (Melaugh, 2011). Another unique aspect of Clicky is how it calculates bounce rates. Each visitor who spends at least 30 seconds looking at a page is considered engaged and is not counted as a bounce, even if a second page is not viewed (Melaugh, 2011). Clicky recognizes some people might have found what they are looking for in that amount of time, which would be erroneous to count it as a bounce (Melaugh, 2011).
In relation to Google Analytics, Clicky's cost are less daunting to firms interesting in tracking and analyzing their websites. Unlike GA Premium which starts at a flat rate of $150,000 per year, Clicky's Pro Platnium version starts at $159.99 a month and also offers free versions of its analytics product (Clicky, n.d.). According to its homepage, Clicky prices may range outside this for those who customize the product in light of specific business needs. Possibly the most popular value Clicky features as opposed to GA is their real time tracking, as in seeing the websites tracking right now. The real time tracking has added value beyond pinpointing your traffic's location and has even aided in preventing security breaches. Customer provided testimony states that even during trial versions of Clicky unusual activity was able to be detected and audited in prevention of a security breach (Clicky Testimonials, n.d.). Additionally, Clicky enables spy features on their dashboard which locates in a global map your traffic source (Clicky, n.d.). Risks of using Clicky as opposed to Google Analytics is the fear that search terms will not pass through referrers and therefore not be subjected to search analytics which is discuessed in Clicky's blog post titled "Say Goodbye to Search Analytics." Speculation continues that search engines like Google will not allow analytics for firms like Clicky for the namesake of protecting users on HTTPS websites, but in reality Google will harvest this information.
Piwik is a second alternative to GA which also has a free and premium version. The Enterprise, Premium, and regular versions all have the option of consultations with experts and training for workers and administrators(Piwik, n.d.)Like GA and Clicky, Piwik tracks visitors and their activity with websites, and can measure goals to increase conversions (Hines, 2014). Piwik is advertised for its ease in installation and setup. Conversion goals are also simply tracked. Another feature of Piwik is the ability to add as many websites as a subscriber wants with one installation (Melaugh, 2011). Additionally, like other web analytics, Piwik offers customizable platforms and open architecture (Melaugh, 2011). Piwik also gives a company the advantage of extra privacy, as a company owns its own data on the server or has a Piwik cloud (White, 2014). Piwik tracks file downloads, outbound links, and cart abandonment (Speyer, 2012). Piwik is also advantageous to companies who work internationally, as the company has many locations abroad and conforms to the EU cookie policy (White, 2014). The company buttresses this choice with a policy of not sharing information with advertisers(Piwik, n.d.) Hence, companies with an international presence, need a highly customizable platform, or prefer to own their own data would be well served by Piwik.
However, Piwik is not without its serious drawbacks. A drawback to Piwik over Clicky and GA is detailed segmentation of data is not readily available, and lacks time on site tracking, which can be a huge deterrent in measuring conversions (Hines, 2014). Additionally, Piwik has the same bounce rate issue as GA (Melaugh, 2011). Thus, a company must analyze these tradeoffs when determining the switching costs for Piwik.
Perhaps the greatest drawback to Piwik is the security issue. Due to the open source nature of Piwik, the system was hacked in 2012 with an update to their software(Speyer, 2012). In response to this intrusion, Piwik developed a decentralized approach to data, allowing clients to own it on their own servers or privacy through the cloud and endorsing decentralization in technology storage (Zawadzinski, 2014). In addition to this, Piwik endorses using a SQL Database to install so that hackers can't access material (Piwik User Guides, n.d.) Therefore, Piwik can be used if a database is utilized to store data.
Open Web Analytics: Click to link to Open Web Analytics here.
Open Web Analytics (OWA) has similar features to older versions of GA, which makes conversion easy for people who have used GA. It has the same standard features of GA, Clicky, and Piwik of tracking visitors and their use of websites and measures goals (Hines, 2014). It is better at drilling data than Piwik, but perhaps not as well as GA or Clicky (Melaugh, 2011). Similar to GA and Clicky, tracks using heat maps and geo-location (Hines, 2014). Unlike GA, Clicky, and Piwik, OWA is completely free. That is, no premium version is available. The drawback is that OWA is not updated as frequently as other web analytics (Melaugh, 2011). Additionally, OWA is demanding on server resources and, therefore, does not work well with shared hosting accounts (Melaugh, 2011).
Open Web Analytics (OWA) is an open source web analytic tool. It’s similar to the old standard version of Google Analytics, and advertise as “free.” Unfortunately, the “free” version of GA is actually not free based on our previous finding. When to deploy OWA, it is important to consider the overall potential cost of implementation. From a technical standpoint, installing OWA could be time consuming and costly. An outdated operational system is not just a technical issue, but involves breaking contracts or agreements with different vendors or any other third party IT providers (Gallaugher, 2014). OWA must be hosted on the user’s web server. It can only be run under UNIX and most Windows operating systems and requires specific PHP configuration settings and extension as well as MySQL database (OWA, n.d.). This is where a tangible upfront cost could occur as IT personnel might be needed during the installation process. In addition, UNIX operating system normally cost additional $1,407 per user (McKenderick, 2011). Similar to the free version of GA, OWA is considered as a self-support product. OWA provides free demos, examples and helpful documentations for users. However, unlike OWA, GA has “Analytics Academy” website which contains learning materials and resources for all users. If a OWA user needs technical help, they can request to be added on OWA’s mailing list or ask questions in the support forums (OWA, n.d.). However, it might not be useful for a mid-size or larger companies based on their day-to-day needs and demands. They might need to hire additional professional web analytic consultants for training and support. In addition, product managers, experienced business and data analysts, user experience experts and design-oriented content managers are the distinctive talented professionals who can better manage the digital information by targeting the right customers (Daub, M., & Wiesinger A., 2015). Overall, OWA has the similar underlying costs as the standard version of GA, however a premium version is not available where a service level agreement might be crucial for larger enterprises.
Subscribing to OWA not only gives the users more control and ownership of your website’s data information, but also provides two key valuable benefits that you cannot find with GA. First, OWA does not have a limit for numbers of hits per month verses the standard version of GA has a limit of 10 million per month. This could be critical for users who faces a higher volume of traffic but does not need a premium version of GA. Also, “Domstream” recording could help marketers to see the “real-time” interactions. They may adjust the content information based on how the visitors are interacting with their page. This is another great way for the user to know instantly if a visitor was just bouncing around the site or if a “buy now” content was actually clicked on. This function could be beneficial for organizations who have recognized Internet of Things’ potential. They could integrate this real-time capability to better “extracts actionable insights from the torrent data IoT will generate” (Bughin, J., Chui, M., & Manyika, L., 2015). The standard version of GA, it generally takes at least 24 to 48 hours to receive the real-time reports and does not have a mouse movement recording function.
Every product has security concerns especially when it comes to an open-source software application. From the risk perspective, OWA users could avoid a third party’s potential interest in their web analytics data by storing their data on their own server. This means they have a lower risk of cyberthreats from a third party. The chances of the data being sold to a competitor could be smaller. However, OWA is not protected by a security infrastructure like GA. This could be a hazard for users if their server got hacked. They might not be able to recover their files. A big company like Walmart has a very secure infrastructure where the data center is considered “off limits” (Gallaugher, 2014). Also, OWA being an open-source software could have a higher chance of human error in the coding process. The risk from the behavioral perspective is that any developer can contribute to the OWA source code. It opens up the vulnerability for bugs and future cyber-crime attacks.
Every product has security concerns especially when it comes to an open-source software application. From the risk perspective, OWA users could avoid a third party’s potential interest in their web analytics data by storing their data on their own server. This means they have a lower risk of cyberthreats from a third party. The chances of the data being sold to a competitor could be smaller. However, OWA is not protected by a security infrastructure like GA. This could be a hazard for users if their server got hacked. They might not be able to recover their files. A big company like Walmart has a very secure infrastructure where the data center is considered “off limits” (Gallaugher, 2014). Also, OWA being an open-source software could have a higher chance of human error in the coding process. The risk from the behavioral perspective is that any developer can contribute to the OWA source code. It opens up the vulnerability for bugs and future cyber-crime attacks.
Comparison of Alternatives:
Google Analytics
|
Clicky
|
Piwik
|
Open Web Analytics
|
|
Cost
|
Free: standard version
$150k/yr : premium version (includes service level agreement – 24/7 support)
|
Clicky ranges from free use to $159.99/month. Costs above said range requires customized versions of Cliky.
|
Piwik pricing is free to $5,900 for 500,000,000 actions per month.
Piwik for Enterprise includes a consultant fee.
|
Free. No premium version. Potential cost of implementation - ex. $1,407 per user for UNIX operating system.
|
Value
|
Measurement protocol for hurdle rates, customized metrics, event tracking, market segmentation tools, real-time reports, the ease of use, mobile tracking.
|
Clicky provides real time tracking, spy mode location view of traffic, video analytics, comment analytics, locates malware with real time.
|
Piwik delivers goal measurement, conversion rates, real time statistics, a mobile app, and
offers consultant and training services to non Premium users. Piwik doesn't sell data to advertisers or violate EU privacy policies. You have the option of owning your data with a secure SQL database.
|
Ownership of your data. No limit for numbers of hits per month. Domstream recording could help users to see the real-time interactions.
|
Risks
|
Security Risk associated with Javascript and open-source bugs like Heartbleed. Risk of cyberthreats from Google’s insiders. Privacy concerns with the use of cookies.
|
Increasing restrictions on search analytics on https sites will impact the usefulness on GetClicky.
|
Because Piwik is open sourced, it is more susceptible to hackers. Hackers planted a backdoor attack in 2012 on the system, and user information was compromised.
|
OWA could avoid cyberthreats from a third party by storing data on your own server. However, a more secure database center will be needed. In addition, an open-source software has a higher chance for bugs and cyber-crime attacks.
|
The following URL provides a comparison of Clicky vs. other web analytics: https://clicky.com/compare/
References
Bughin, J., Chui, M., & Manyika, J. (2015, August 1). An executive’s guide to the Internet of Things. Retrieved from http://www.mckinsey.com/Insights/Business_Technology/An_executives_guide_to_the_Internet_of_Things?cid=digital-eml-alt-mip-mck-oth-1508
Clicky Testimonials (n.d). Retrieved November 23, 2015, from https://clicky.com/testimonials
Daub, M., & Wiesinger, A. (2015, March 1). Acquiring the capabilities you need to go digital. Retrieved from http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/business_technology/Acquiring_the_capabilities_you_need_to_go_digital?cid=other-eml-alt-mip-mck-oth-1503
Gallaugher, J. (2014). Information systems: A manager’s guide to harnessing technology (2.0). Washington, DC: Flat World Knowledge.
Hines, K. (2014). 15 Google Anlaytics alternatives [web lob post]. Retrieved from http://www.iacquire.com/blog/15-google-analytics-alternatives
McKenderick, J. (2011, May 2). Pricing the Hidden Costs of Unix, Linux, and Windows. Retrieved from http://aplawrence.com/Opinion/joemcktco.html
Melaugh, S. (2011). Web stats: Alternatives to Google Analytics [web blog post]. Retrieved from http://imimpact.com/web-stats-alternatives-to-google-analytics/
Piwik. (n.d.) How is Piwik Different to Google Analytics and Other Web Analytics Tools?
[Company FAQ] Retrieved from http://piwik.org/faq/new-to-piwik/faq_15/
Piwik. (n.d.) How to Configure Piwik for Security [Web User Guide] Retrieved from
Say goodbye to search analytics. (2010, March 23). Retrieved November 23, 2015, from https://clicky.com/blog/216/say-goodbye-to-search-analytics
Speyer, A. (2012) Some reasons to choose Google Analytics. Retrieved from
Tung, L. (2012) Hackers planted backdoor attack in web analytics update. Retrieved from http://www.cso.com.au/article/443069/hackers_planted_backdoor_piwik_web_analytics_update/
Valk, J. (2011, June 25). Clicky Analytics (getClicky) Review: Clean, simple, effective. Yoast. Retrieved November 23, 2015, from https://yoast.com/clicky-analytics-review/
White, L. (2014) A Closer Look at Piwik: A Google Analytics Alternative.[web blog post].
Zawadzinski, M. (December 22, 2014). Decentralization: The Key to Our Online Safety. [web blog post]
No comments:
Post a Comment