In all the interactions I have seen regarding this topic, I feel like I am being pitched into a Mac-versus-PC-esqué battle all over again. Being an avid user of both solutions, I feel compelled to set the record straight.

What's all the commotion about?

Some time ago, Google bought the somewhat out-dated Urchin web analytics SBU in order to create a platform for their own Web Analytics offering. Since then, Google developers have made many improvements on the original system. As Google continues to play catch-up with more advanced analytics solutions (the target being the current fore-runner Omniture, Inc.), people have begun to flock to the "free" product offering that Google provides. As such, questions have arisen regarding the viability of the more established solutions such as WebTrends and Coremetrics. Why pay for web analytics services when Google is good enough?

Today, I hope to set the record straight and clarify some myths and errors that I have seen pervading the Internet space. I'd like to consider myself more of an expert in this area based upon my credentials and experience in using both analytics solutions regularly.

Myth 1: Google Analytics is just as reliable as proprietary tracking solutions

While Google uses Javascript tracking in accordance to the industry standards, there are some major limitations to the tracking functionality they offer. There is a case where one "supposed" SEO expert claimed that Google Analytics was actually more accurate than Omniture SiteCatalyst. I would link to the article, but I do not want to help its search rankings. The article's author, Bart Gibby, claimed that SiteCatalyst data was "bad" simply because he expected that Unique Visitor counts should never exceed Visit counts. While in an ideal world this would be true, the Internet world is anything but ideal. My article on the three building blocks of analytics addresses these concepts and caveats in greater detail.

In comparison against Omniture SiteCatalyst, Google analytics is far more limited in providing accurate tracking capabilities. The standard out-of-the-box implementation provides zero support for browsers that have no javascript support or third-party javascript execution disabled. This translates into fewer actual visitors being tracked.

Myth 2: You can expect 100% accuracy and consistency from your web analytics tracking solutions

As I have detailed in this previous article, you can never expect your web analytics solution to maintain 100% accuracy simply because of the uncontrollable variables that exist in the Internet cloud. Considering the fact that you have little to no control over the client-side javascript execution and data transmission, you can really only control how you implement your tracking solution.

And now for the comparison showdown between Google Analytics and Omniture's SiteCatalyst:

Pros of Google Analytics

• Google Analytics is free from a financial perspective; however, the fine print in your agreement provides no guarantee for reliability or even privacy of data. Google apparently uses your web analytics data to optimize its own Search Engine advertising model (see the ongoing debate in the comments below). This creates an obvious conflict of interest and will result in greater costs if you engage in SEM activities.
• The interface is incredibly intuitive and easy to use. They do not attempt to educate you thoroughly on the ins and outs of all things web analytics, and your experience in their UI is very controlled. This allows for users of all varieties to derive usable information, no matter the skill level.
  UPDATE: Google Analytics offers a limited form of Advanced Segmentation
• The implementation process is very simple. Copy some code into your site code and you are set to go. This extremely limits the customization possibilities of your reporting, but it is what it is.
• Some say the lack of real-time reporting is a good thing. I am not sure why that is as I will soon explain, but I list it here because some people consider it an advantage.

Pros of Omniture SiteCatalyst

• The biggest advantage to Omniture's offering is the extremely customizable implementation of your tracking. Custom success events and variables allow for a virtually unlimited set of options when planning your analytics strategy. The caveat to this feature of course is the increased complexity of implementing this solution.
• Generally speaking, the level of detail you can obtain in your reports in SiteCatalyst is far superior to Google's offering. SiteCatalyst's Pathing, Segmentation, and Conversion modules are the main aspects of the program that handily trump Google Analytics' meager substitutes. Omniture also is leaps and bounds ahead of Google in the other online business optimization categories, such as Data Warehousing, Discover, and Data Sources, to name only a few. Test & Target alongside Recommendations actually allow for real action to be automatically taken in response to the data you collect!
• There is no conflict of interest with Omniture and your SEM efforts. You own the data you collect, and it is kept private and confidential.
• Real-time reporting! I know I listed the opposite as a Pro under Google, but I strongly disagree with that opinion. Many e-Commerce sites need the most recent data fast in order to make critical decisions. Even with my tracking on this site, I consistently look at the real-time data to ensure that I am meeting the day's goals. If I am not, I can take action to improve my statistics before the day is over. Everyone has their own reasons for their own opinions, but I simply cannot fathom why someone would actually want less information from an analytics solution.

The Bottom Line

One can easily see that these two solutions are targeting two separate and distinct markets: small- to mid-level accounts and the hard-core or enterprise accounts. Google Analytics is perfect for those people who are less experienced in web analytics. You really need dedicated web analysts if you want to get the most out of SiteCatalyst. It still surprises me how clients simply purchase Omniture SiteCatalyst because everyone else is doing it. The same could be said for Google Analytics. Simply having web analytics will not be helpful unless you know how to use it (in fact, it could even cause harm if you are not smart about it).

I like to think of it in this way: You do not deliver highly technical reports to the CEO of a company; rather, you give useful yet simple summary overviews. This fits in line with what Google Analytics provides. Down the chain of command, however, you need expert analysis on deep levels of data to identify trends not easily seen from a summary overview. This is where Omniture's products are particularly useful as long as you know what you are doing. The best solution simply depends on your needs.

I still recommend using some sort of web analytics for anyone with a website. Choose the solution that fits your needs best, make a plan, and be prepared to really get some good use out of it (act on your data according to your pre-determined strategy).

Here's another good article on the topic: http://benrobb.com/2007/02/27/google-analytics-vs-omniture-sitecatalyst/

* Note: In the interest of full disclosure, I work as an employee of Omniture, Inc. However, the views represented here in no way reflect the opinions or overall position of the company. *