Home > Questions and Answers > Tracking Questions

Prosper vs CPVLab when starting out (12)

01-03-2014 12:25 PM #1 phil2014 (AMC Alumnus)
Prosper vs CPVLab when starting out

Hi,

I've not tried either; but as I understand it, people usually start with Prosper (free) then 'graduate' to CPVLab (paid). And CPVLab is better featured.

As someone starting out in CPA, do I need to start with Prosper or, if I can afford it (which I can) is it better just to go straight to CPVLab

I'm about to purchase the Beyond Hosting starter VPS, so I may as well get one or the other installed.

Thanks.
Phil

01-03-2014 12:50 PM #2 Mr Green (Administrator)

It's a personal choice mate. They both get the job done. I've done millions of revenue through prosper. The biggest difference is the interface. If you don't care about the money then try them both.

01-03-2014 01:52 PM #3 phil2014 (AMC Alumnus)

Quote Originally Posted by Mr Green View Post
It's a personal choice mate. They both get the job done. I've done millions of revenue through prosper. The biggest difference is the interface. If you don't care about the money then try them both.
Thanks for posting, Mr Green.

I figured if there was a big difference/advantage then I'd pay up and go with the better one; but if its marginal then, hell, free suits me fine.

I read somewhere that CPVLab was more intuitive and Prosper required more work - and I didn't want to spend too much time learning an new, possibly oblique, interface: so I thought maybe paying would save me time.

01-03-2014 02:29 PM #4 larceny (Member)

Prosper doesn't have much features like landing page rotation (though there are scripts on this forum to help you with that, but it's not just "adding another landing url" to your tracking script). Also there's no redirect features - though CPVLabs doesn't really have any either. So you just have to do more "hacks" ..

01-03-2014 03:43 PM #5 caurmen (Administrator)

It's definitely worth considering the STM Mobile Tracker in place of either Prosper or CPVLab: unlike Prosper, it has landing page rotation and redirects built in, both of which are useful, and unlike CPVLab it's still free (barring $25 for the MaxMind org database).

The name's slightly confusing, but it's definitely not just for mobile: it's a good tracker for Web too.

You can get it and details on how to install and use it here: http://stmforum.com/forum/showthread...-The-Tutorials

01-03-2014 04:30 PM #6 stackman (Administrator)

CPV Lab is probably easier if your less technical, biggest difference of the 2 i know.

01-04-2014 07:59 PM #7 larceny (Member)

@Caurmen,

I was looking into the STM tracker - but did you guys change the way it handles the tracking - ie, not relying on the p202 JS at bottom of the lander (so you don't need a redirect). I imagine you couldn't do that since it's tracking mobile and JS isn't the best solution since some devices don't handle it very well.. Or is it handled the same way as p202?

I want to use a tracking solution that doesn't rely on the campaign url/redirect to track clicks. Better to track cloaked landers when there's no redirect - so you can use the cloaker via includes - instead of redirecting.. So right now I'm stuck using p202 and then the cloaker lander rotation feature. P202 just lacks so many features - it's frustrating.. I didn't try the STM mobile tracker - mainly because I assumed it uses a campaign url/redirect like cpvlab/imobitrax.

01-05-2014 12:38 PM #8 bbrock32 (Administrator)

The STM tracker uses a redirect to track because that's the most accurate way.

A JS/PHP include would require the page to load and in mobile a good 30% of users don't even get to see the lander ( accidental clicks and closing it quick ).

However for cloaked landers you could easily load the tracker URL from an iframe , would that do the trick?

01-05-2014 03:25 PM #9 erikgyepes (Moderator)

I was starting with P202, used it for about 1 and half month, learned some basics.

Then I bought CPV Lab which was one of the best investment and a HUGE time saver. Never have to dig in LP to be sure my tracking codes/redirect scripts are correct, easy split testing. Scaling to new placements is just one click away - I use the clone feature for this.

I not say CPV Lab is perfect (at the moment it lacks mobile features for example), but it does what it is supposed to do and its get done the job very good.

Just my 2 cents.

01-05-2014 04:32 PM #10 larceny (Member)

Quote Originally Posted by bbrock32 View Post
The STM tracker uses a redirect to track because that's the most accurate way.

A JS/PHP include would require the page to load and in mobile a good 30% of users don't even get to see the lander ( accidental clicks and closing it quick ).

However for cloaked landers you could easily load the tracker URL from an iframe , would that do the trick?
Yeah I assumed that's why it was changed. Regarding cloaking with an iframe, I just never trust using iframes. Worry about cookies dropping properly and also some advertisers block iframes, etc. Just doesn't always work 100%

Regarding CPVLabs - It's definitely easier to use than p202. I think imobitrax has by far the most features, but it's very expensive compared to most other trackers and renews the sub monthly.

01-05-2014 09:30 PM #11 phil2014 (AMC Alumnus)

Just to update the thread, I finally opted for a CPVLab license. I've read a number of times how Prosper requires more 'tweaking' and technical engagement. I'm not shy of this but decided that I wanted my focus to be firmly on the marketing and to avoid getting caught up in technical exercises as much as possible. I have my ocd moments, so the more 'out of the box' it works the better.

With that said, if I'd known about the STM tracker earlier, I might have given that a try: but I'd already purchased when I discovered it so there's no point at the moment.

Thanks for all your posts here, it was good to have the discussion.

01-05-2014 10:07 PM #12 maynzie (Moderator)

I prefer CPVlabs only because I find it simpler

Home > Questions and Answers > Tracking Questions