Split Reviews & Ratings

5/5

“Comprehensive Solution for Experimentation, But Can Be Pricey”

I’ve been using Split for A/B testing, and the tool has been fantastic in terms of data tracking and feature management. However, the price has started to become a pain as we scale.

Pros : Split has everything we need for both feature flagging and experimenting. The ability to monitor and roll out features based on results is fantastic.

Cons : The tool is quite pricey for small teams. It’s great for larger teams, but it can feel like overkill for smaller companies with fewer experiments.

Switched from : LaunchDarkly

Reason to switch : We switched from LaunchDarkly to Split because Split’s better performance with larger-scale data and experiments helped streamline our process at a lower cost.

4.7/5

“A Must-Have Tool for Large-Scale Experimentation”

We decided to use Split for our large-scale feature flagging and experimentation needs, and it’s been fantastic. The tool provides detailed analytics that helps us make better decisions. But it can take time to adjust if you’re not familiar with experimentation at scale.

Pros : Split offers robust data analytics for feature flags and experiments. It’s easy to roll out and monitor experiments, and the results are actionable and well-structured.

Cons : The tool’s complexity can be overwhelming for smaller teams or those just starting with experimentation. Also, it can be a little slow at times when processing large experiments.

Switched from : Optimizely

Reason to switch : We switched from Optimizely to Split because Split provides more granular control over feature flags, and the integration with our dev tools was seamless, unlike Optimizely.

4.7/5

“Works Great, But Initial Setup Can Be Time-Consuming”

We implemented Split for feature flagging and experimentation, and once set up, it works really well. The main issue was the amount of time required for the initial setup and integration.

Pros : Split is a great tool for managing feature flags and tracking the success of new features with experimentation. It works well with a variety of platforms and is easy to integrate.

Cons : The initial setup is a bit complex, especially if you're implementing feature flags on a large scale. It takes time to get everything configured properly.

Switched from : Flagsmith

Reason to switch : We switched from Flagsmith to Split because Split offered more flexible integrations with our existing systems and had a more refined approach to data analytics.

4.6/5

“Ideal for A/B Testing and Continuous Delivery Teams”

Split has been invaluable for our continuous delivery team. It integrates well with our CI/CD pipelines and makes A/B testing much easier. However, there’s a learning curve, and getting everything set up correctly took a while.

Pros : If you need robust A/B testing capabilities, Split is fantastic. The platform integrates well with CI/CD pipelines, making it a great fit for agile teams that focus on continuous delivery.

Cons : It takes a bit of time to understand how to use all of its capabilities effectively. The documentation is helpful, but it requires a bit of trial and error to get everything right.

Switched from : Optimizely

Reason to switch : We switched from Optimizely to Split because Split's better integration with our CI/CD tools allowed for smoother, more efficient A/B testing in our development cycle.

4.6/5

“Powerful but Requires Time to Learn”

I’ve been using Split for feature flagging, and while it’s been great for testing new features and getting data, it’s not the easiest to pick up. Expect to spend some time learning how to use the platform effectively.

Pros : Split is powerful when it comes to managing feature flags and experimentation. It also offers good integration with various analytics tools.

Cons : I had to spend quite a bit of time learning the system. The documentation is helpful, but can be difficult to digest for beginners.

Switched from : Unleash

Reason to switch : I switched from Unleash to Split because of the better support for real-time experimentation and the more detailed analytics it provides.

4.5/5

“Fantastic for Feature Flags, But Can Be Overwhelming”

I love how Split helps us control which features are active for different user segments. However, the interface can feel a bit too cluttered when managing multiple experiments or configurations at once.

Pros : Split’s feature flagging functionality is top-tier. It’s easy to roll out new features and monitor their impact, all from a single dashboard.

Cons : The user interface can be a bit overwhelming, especially when you have a lot of active experiments or flags. It takes time to get used to the various dashboards and settings.

Switched from : LaunchDarkly

Reason to switch : I switched from LaunchDarkly to Split because Split had better analytics features and allowed us to set up and track experiments more easily.

4.5/5

“Very Effective, But Pricing Is Too High for Small Teams”

I used Split to roll out features without interrupting users, and the platform did its job well. The ability to quickly toggle features made it very efficient. However, the cost was a bit too high for my small team.

Pros : The feature flagging and testing are spot-on. The platform is easy to set up and runs seamlessly across multiple environments.

Cons : As we scaled up, we found that the pricing became a bit restrictive. It’s a great tool, but not necessarily affordable for smaller teams or startups.

Switched from : Rollout.io

Reason to switch : We switched to Rollout.io because it offered more flexible pricing plans, and it was easier for our small team to manage compared to Split.

4.3/5

“Highly Functional Tool, But Expensive for Startups”

We’ve been using Split to manage our feature flags, and it has worked great. The ability to roll out features in a controlled way has been very useful. However, as our company grew, the pricing became a concern.

Pros : Split is a great tool for managing feature flags and experimenting with new features in real time. It’s easy to implement, and the results are reliable.

Cons : For startups or small businesses, Split can feel too expensive, especially as the number of users or experiments grows. It’s an enterprise-grade solution, and the pricing reflects that.

Switched from : FeatureFlagCo

Reason to switch : We switched from FeatureFlagCo to Split because Split offered better scalability and more advanced experimentation features, which were necessary as we grew.

4.3/5

“Great for A/B Testing, But Can Get Expensive”

I initially chose Split to handle our A/B testing and feature flags. It's easy to set up, and the results are visible in real time, which is a big plus. However, as our team grew, the price tag began to feel like a burden.

Pros : Split has a solid A/B testing framework. It's easy to implement and allows for quick results. The user interface is very intuitive and beginner-friendly.

Cons : As our usage increased, the pricing became a concern. The cost can ramp up quickly, especially when scaling to large teams or handling a lot of experiments.

Switched from : LaunchDarkly

Reason to switch : We switched from LaunchDarkly to Split for its simplicity and more direct integration options. While LaunchDarkly had more features, Split offered everything we needed without the complexity.

4.2/5

“Effective Feature Flagging Tool for Teams”

Split has been a lifesaver for our dev team. It gives us the flexibility to test new features in production without affecting users. However, the setup was a bit of a challenge, and I wish the pricing was more transparent.

Pros : Split allows for excellent feature flagging and experimentation. It helps separate deployment from release, which is crucial for smooth rollouts.

Cons : The setup process can take a while, especially if you don't have dedicated dev resources. Plus, the pricing model isn't always clear and can get tricky as you scale.

Switched from : FeatureFlagCo

Reason to switch : We switched to Split from FeatureFlagCo because of the better documentation and easier integration with our existing stack. FeatureFlagCo didn’t offer as many options for experiment tracking.