This month we decided to conduct a little research! We analyzed 1.3m websites in order to determine what tracking software they were using. The results, in some ways, aren’t that surprising.

As you can see from the breakdown below, there are some simple conclusions you can draw:

  • The vast majority of websites use Google Analytics. That’s not surprising considering the extensive functionality in GA and the fact that it’s (mostly) free of charge.
  • A large of number websites have no tracking software in use at all (excluding server-side tracking options)! Why? It’s not that difficult to implement and they’re missing out on analysing a whole shed loads of useful stats.
  • There are still over 30,000 websites using Urchin tracking codes. Urchin was acquired by Google and discontinued in 2012, so the product is now obsolete.
  • WordPress Stats isn’t that far behind Urchin’s numbers, which helps to underline the popularity WordPress enjoys
  • I was a little surprised by the relatively small numbers of sites using Omniture (or Adobe Site Catalyst as it’s now known), even though it’s a relatively pricey alternative – we now support Omniture integration with our app!
  • There were also only small numbers of Woopra users showing up. It’s a great tool – we use it ourselves! 

The only thing we omitted from the analysis was to look out for indications that the site was using Google Tag Manager.

This may have had some effect on the overall numbers, depending upon the take up of Tag Manager. However, considering it’s still a relative new product, having only been launched in October 2012, I wouldn’t expect the effect to have been that significant (yet).

By: Matt O’Toole, Customer Experience Manager at Analytics SEO

4 Comments

  • Hi Matt
    Some interesting info. Couple of questions. I note a lack of hubspot/infusionsoft tags in the data which seems surprising considering their claimed market share of MA. Would you be able to provide and further insight into the date. i.e. regional location, size of site etc. This may answer some the questions readers have.
    Garry

    • Not sure if that was one we we missed that off the list we were looking for. I’ll check with the coder involved in the project.

      Matt.

  • The data was a random cross section of sites we had found in the SERPs. Mainly .co.uk and .com with a spattering of international sites. This analysis was a by-product of some other analysis we were doing. The lack of Hubspot/Infusion soft tags was simply because they weren’t in the huge list of providers we were looking for. We’ll add them for the next time we run this kind of analysis….not sure when that will be though I’m afraid.
    You could also check builtwith.com if you need to know now.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *