Opper / Qiota
Results in the Tech Stack study
Results come from publishers’ answers and cannot be edited by the vendor. Learn more
What its users say (23)
5/10“I can run A/B tests and segment my targets to offer them different paywalls. I would say that is the basics of a paywall solution. But I find the tool rather "technical" for marketing; I often have to go through CSS or HTML to customise the creative side of my paywalls. That is the main obstacle for me.”
5/10“Does the job, but a bit rigid. A pity there is no template library worthy of the name.”
6/10“Strengths: ease of interfacing with our current tech stack, optimised web performance and a rich set of conversion/segmentation modules. Points of attention: the editor's lack of user-friendliness, which makes the marketing teams dependent. Lack of responsiveness and proactivity in follow-up when it comes to support.”
8/10“Well-executed integration, business teams have taken ownership, meets the expected use cases (being optimised).”
7/10“Easy to get to grips with, but the dashboard needs work. Does the job.”
8/10“Same comment as for landing pages. Very effective and intuitive. Many customisation options. Direct link with our subscription management tool.”
9/10“Ease of integration, value for money.”
10/10“Possible to change the paywall fairly easily in the interface.”
8/10“Easy to configure and activate, lets us fine-tune our segmentation as well as possible.”
6/10“Platform that is easy to use and quick to set up, compatible with a tight budget, but designing paywalls is complicated without good HTML / CSS knowledge (thanks ChatGPT :)), and no icon support and no compatibility with more complex paywalls, unfortunately…”
6/10“A somewhat convoluted process and a not very responsive vendor, but once you understand the principle, you manage to set up the scenarios you want.”
8/10“Functional and good value for money.”
8/10“A reliable tool that has allowed us to develop our freemium strategy with peace of mind.”
4/10“No product development.”
7/10“Close relationship with the teams, attentive to the customer, possible to contribute to building the roadmap; weak point: you need certain profiles to get to grips with it. No app SDK, however.”
5/10“Heavy and tedious to integrate.”
5/10“Implementation in progress.”
5/10“Customisation very complicated, heavy reliance on the tech team.”
8/10“Management of the paywall, but also of landing pages and promotional banners. Team attentive to development needs. Many segmentation possibilities thanks to the links with tag managers.”
8/10“Good service-to-price ratio.”
4/10“The tool seems full of potential, but in practice it is not at all turnkey. And the customer relationship is appalling: you have to fight to get information in dribs and drabs about configuring the tool. The native stats are unusable.”
9/10“Easy to use – Very flexible – Natively interfaced with our subscription management system.”
6/10“Difficult to set up, but comprehensive.”
Anonymised comments from study respondents.
What its users say (5)
5/10“For on-site engagement journeys (excluding paywall), we just have a sticky banner that we manage with Qiota. A tool that does the job but does not allow for very advanced engagement strategies for our readers.”
6/10“Same as for the paywalls. It is a bit rigid. But after some trial and error, we went back to simpler engagement journeys, which are clearer for users and also easier for us to manage.”
8/10“Same comment as for landing pages. Very effective and intuitive. Many customisation options. Direct link with our subscription management tool.”
7/10“Two engagement journeys but we could offer more by spending more time on it.”
8/10“Allows different scenarios to be set up smoothly.”
Anonymised comments from study respondents.
What its users say (8)
8/10“Very effective and intuitive. Many customisation options. Direct link with our subscription management tool.”
9/10“Easy to use and natively connected to Mahalo.”
8/10“The Qiota tool lets us easily change the marketing offers presented depending on the customer journey. It is also perfectly integrated into the environment (Mahalo).”
9/10“Easy to use, meets our needs, teams available.”
7/10“Slightly laborious process, requiring a lot of customisation via a JS overlay. But the result is satisfactory.”
7/10“Scalable product matching our needs.”
8/10“The tool is effective and robust.”
3/10“Unfriendly interface, we have to paste bits of script into every LP for it to work, no product evolution.”
Anonymised comments from study respondents.
What its users say (2)
5/10“Solution operated by TBS. SSO calls seem a bit slow.”
4/10“The solution integrates well with our other tools, and it is natively integrated with Mahalo, our subscription management solution. But we encounter numerous login and performance problems.”
Anonymised comments from study respondents.