Comparing tracking systems Affise, HasOffers and FuseClick
There are many tracking systems on the mobile marketing market. And if, speaking of the client, we immediately think of such giants as AppsFlyer, Adjust, MAT, etc., then when we talk about trackers for advertising agencies, we mean a little other systems: HasOffers, Fuselick, Affise, Cake, etc.
At Mobio, we worked with three of the systems mentioned above: HasOffers, FuseClick and Affise. At a certain stage of the company's development, each of them came in handy. However, there were always things that would be nice to recycle. The article will discuss the pros and cons of these systems.
Before you begin to evaluate the criteria, I will tell you a little about each of the systems:
')
HasOffers. One of the titans on the market, almost everyone knows about him. A good and time-tested system, integration with which third-party services are carried out first.
FuseClick. Development from China, in which it turned out to make some things even better. But there are a number of serious flaws, which will be discussed later.
Affise. The Lithuanian system with Russian roots, created taking into account the characteristics of mobile agencies, because it was originally developed by its representatives. From considered - the youngest and actively developing.
Next, consider the criteria for evaluation:
To estimate, let's take a traffic level of 20,000,000 clicks, a CR of 1.5% - 300,000 conversions.
In HasOffers, the cost of the most suitable tariff - Enterprise - will be $ 799. It includes 1,000,000 clicks, 10,000,000 impressions and 500,000 conversions. In case of exceeding the number of clicks, they are priced at $ 0.80 / 1,000 clicks, impression - $ 0.005 / 1.000. The total cost will be $ 15,999.
In FuseClick, the cost goes strictly for clicks. Over 20 million it will be $ 4,300. Affise considers the cost exclusively by the number of conversions. A suitable plan, Enterprise, includes 60,000 conversions for $ 499. Excess - $ 0.008 per conversion. Total for 300 000 cost will be $ 2 419.
Of course, the criterion is quite flexible. You can pour traffic with different CR, in different volumes, use VIP-rates, however, according to the data that I used, the assessment is as follows:
Here we take into account the overall speed of loading pages during the update or transition.
HasOffers is very fast and efficient in its work, it has never caused any complaints, it has not “fallen”. No complaints, the highest score.
With FuseClick, the situation is diametrically opposite. The speed is not about FuseClick, loading pages with offers by the minute of real time is an everyday situation. Actually, one of the reasons for not working with this system.
Affise is not as fast as HasOffers, but not too far behind. Yes, sometimes there are delays with the download, but in general it is kept very cheerful. In addition, according to tech support, there will soon be a transfer to the new architecture, which will increase the speed of work. In the meantime - four with a minus.
Here we look at the creation of various reports, how accurately and timely everything happens.
HasOffers - statistics is very detailed, convenient to use, very easy to understand. All necessary functions are available. The only drawback is that you cannot immediately cut off all events other than settings.
FuseClick - here you can do what is wrong in HasOffers - a special tick “All events” or only “Initial events” is implemented. However, the minus is that aggregation sometimes gives hard failures, so you can only trust the conversion report and the Overall-report, the benefit of which you can extract everything you need.
Affise - the statistics is still in the process of being finalized, at the moment the functions are very raw. Yes, you can get all that is required, but you have to go to this artifact paths.
How quickly can I get an offer and set it up?
HasOffers - the offer itself start pretty quickly. However, problems start when it is necessary for it to work in MyTarget or it is necessary to set up events and separate payments. It is necessary for the first task to make those. offer, associate it with HasOffers through a separate Offer-Group entity, then set up events on the second question and ask the client to transfer them to exactly the same ID that he assigned to HasOffers (a very inconvenient thing), and for different payments you need to create a bunch of separate groups and re-register them in the offer.
FuseClick - those. It’s still necessary to get an offer, but at least it’s easier to send non-targeted traffic from the main offer - there’s no need to start a group. However, the very setting of the offer takes much longer time. However, this can be attributed to the performance criterion. The goals to get quite simple, as well as prescribe them a custom value, which saves time. However, with different payments you will have to get a lot of different offers - the system does not support multi-payment for one offer in principle.
Affise - here the system manifests itself in all its glory. Those. An offer in principle is not needed - all untargeted traffic can be sent to a preview-link, which solves issues with MT. All payments and goals are configured in one window, allowing you to configure all possible options for the combination of GEO and goals in a single offer.
A variety of methods and settings, the stability of the API.
HasOffers - in the manual there is detailed information on all methods, the ability to run them immediately from the instructions, examples of use, etc. There are no questions on stability of work, everything is fine.
FuseClick - the methods are described in some detail, but the test will not work right away, more like a standard pdf manual. On stability the strange bug has been noticed. The interface gave correct numbers in the conversion report, but the API method sent different data in response, depending on the launch time. After contacting the support, they repaired it during the day, but the sediment remained.
Affise - there are no problems with the stability of the methods, the documentation is very detailed, and there is a test run of general methods (not requiring authorization). Overall, quite good. Given that the API was introduced not so long ago - very good. It would be nice to see more methods in the future, however, now everything is ready for work.
________________________________________________________________________________
Affise comes first. Reasonable cost, usability, not too conspicuous drawbacks. The company did not regret the transition, and now we are satisfied with the work of this system.
In the back Affise breathes HasOffers. Of course, the system has long been familiar to everyone and has taken a firm place in the market. However, this is the problem - it would be time to improve some things, but no one will do that.
Finishes the race FuseClick. The system is raw, slow, though not without its merits. Perhaps someone it is quite suitable, but personally I would not advise her to use.
Of course, there are moments that for someone will make this or that system a leader - well, you judge, not me. But from what is required in our work at Mobio , Affise is the best option. If you do not agree with the estimates and want to add them with your comments and comments - we will be happy to discuss.
At Mobio, we worked with three of the systems mentioned above: HasOffers, FuseClick and Affise. At a certain stage of the company's development, each of them came in handy. However, there were always things that would be nice to recycle. The article will discuss the pros and cons of these systems.
Before you begin to evaluate the criteria, I will tell you a little about each of the systems:
')
HasOffers. One of the titans on the market, almost everyone knows about him. A good and time-tested system, integration with which third-party services are carried out first.
FuseClick. Development from China, in which it turned out to make some things even better. But there are a number of serious flaws, which will be discussed later.
Affise. The Lithuanian system with Russian roots, created taking into account the characteristics of mobile agencies, because it was originally developed by its representatives. From considered - the youngest and actively developing.
Next, consider the criteria for evaluation:
- system cost;
- work speed;
- convenience of statistics;
- convenience of setting;
- work on API.
Cost of
To estimate, let's take a traffic level of 20,000,000 clicks, a CR of 1.5% - 300,000 conversions.
In HasOffers, the cost of the most suitable tariff - Enterprise - will be $ 799. It includes 1,000,000 clicks, 10,000,000 impressions and 500,000 conversions. In case of exceeding the number of clicks, they are priced at $ 0.80 / 1,000 clicks, impression - $ 0.005 / 1.000. The total cost will be $ 15,999.
In FuseClick, the cost goes strictly for clicks. Over 20 million it will be $ 4,300. Affise considers the cost exclusively by the number of conversions. A suitable plan, Enterprise, includes 60,000 conversions for $ 499. Excess - $ 0.008 per conversion. Total for 300 000 cost will be $ 2 419.
Of course, the criterion is quite flexible. You can pour traffic with different CR, in different volumes, use VIP-rates, however, according to the data that I used, the assessment is as follows:
Work speed
Here we take into account the overall speed of loading pages during the update or transition.
HasOffers is very fast and efficient in its work, it has never caused any complaints, it has not “fallen”. No complaints, the highest score.
With FuseClick, the situation is diametrically opposite. The speed is not about FuseClick, loading pages with offers by the minute of real time is an everyday situation. Actually, one of the reasons for not working with this system.
Affise is not as fast as HasOffers, but not too far behind. Yes, sometimes there are delays with the download, but in general it is kept very cheerful. In addition, according to tech support, there will soon be a transfer to the new architecture, which will increase the speed of work. In the meantime - four with a minus.
Convenience of statistics
Here we look at the creation of various reports, how accurately and timely everything happens.
HasOffers - statistics is very detailed, convenient to use, very easy to understand. All necessary functions are available. The only drawback is that you cannot immediately cut off all events other than settings.
FuseClick - here you can do what is wrong in HasOffers - a special tick “All events” or only “Initial events” is implemented. However, the minus is that aggregation sometimes gives hard failures, so you can only trust the conversion report and the Overall-report, the benefit of which you can extract everything you need.
Affise - the statistics is still in the process of being finalized, at the moment the functions are very raw. Yes, you can get all that is required, but you have to go to this artifact paths.
Convenience settings
How quickly can I get an offer and set it up?
HasOffers - the offer itself start pretty quickly. However, problems start when it is necessary for it to work in MyTarget or it is necessary to set up events and separate payments. It is necessary for the first task to make those. offer, associate it with HasOffers through a separate Offer-Group entity, then set up events on the second question and ask the client to transfer them to exactly the same ID that he assigned to HasOffers (a very inconvenient thing), and for different payments you need to create a bunch of separate groups and re-register them in the offer.
FuseClick - those. It’s still necessary to get an offer, but at least it’s easier to send non-targeted traffic from the main offer - there’s no need to start a group. However, the very setting of the offer takes much longer time. However, this can be attributed to the performance criterion. The goals to get quite simple, as well as prescribe them a custom value, which saves time. However, with different payments you will have to get a lot of different offers - the system does not support multi-payment for one offer in principle.
Affise - here the system manifests itself in all its glory. Those. An offer in principle is not needed - all untargeted traffic can be sent to a preview-link, which solves issues with MT. All payments and goals are configured in one window, allowing you to configure all possible options for the combination of GEO and goals in a single offer.
API work
A variety of methods and settings, the stability of the API.
HasOffers - in the manual there is detailed information on all methods, the ability to run them immediately from the instructions, examples of use, etc. There are no questions on stability of work, everything is fine.
FuseClick - the methods are described in some detail, but the test will not work right away, more like a standard pdf manual. On stability the strange bug has been noticed. The interface gave correct numbers in the conversion report, but the API method sent different data in response, depending on the launch time. After contacting the support, they repaired it during the day, but the sediment remained.
Affise - there are no problems with the stability of the methods, the documentation is very detailed, and there is a test run of general methods (not requiring authorization). Overall, quite good. Given that the API was introduced not so long ago - very good. It would be nice to see more methods in the future, however, now everything is ready for work.
________________________________________________________________________________
Final results
Affise comes first. Reasonable cost, usability, not too conspicuous drawbacks. The company did not regret the transition, and now we are satisfied with the work of this system.
In the back Affise breathes HasOffers. Of course, the system has long been familiar to everyone and has taken a firm place in the market. However, this is the problem - it would be time to improve some things, but no one will do that.
Finishes the race FuseClick. The system is raw, slow, though not without its merits. Perhaps someone it is quite suitable, but personally I would not advise her to use.
Of course, there are moments that for someone will make this or that system a leader - well, you judge, not me. But from what is required in our work at Mobio , Affise is the best option. If you do not agree with the estimates and want to add them with your comments and comments - we will be happy to discuss.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/317496/
All Articles