Which Is The Best Traffic Analyzer: Google Analytics, AWstats or Quantcast?

[vaintheartiste]

For a few months now, I've been quite comfortable using using Awstats as it came with my web space but due to so many recommendations by gurus, I signed up for google analytics and got a shocker after 1 month. In one month, the amount of unique visitor traffic Google reflected was like a third of what Awstats was reporting. The next month I decided to get a third opinion and signed up for Quantcast. Quantcast showed a little bit above what Awstats was showing me and now I'm really confused as to which traffic analyzer to stick with? Which is more accurate than the other. Any help would be gladly appreciated.

P.S: If you all don't mind, I might be using your comments in a blog post about these three web stats analyzers. I'll definitely give back with a nofollow free link to your blog/website, if I use your comment. Thanks.

[zoobie]

they are all estimations and I think awstats will show many data such as images appear on your site etc. But the search terms that they arrive to your site should be similar I think.

[ExtremeIM]

I have been using the Awstats from the last 2-3 months and i am having no problem with that.....According to me the Awstats is the best...by the way i have used Google Analytics only once so dont know much about it....

[Radix]

another vote for Awstats

[vaintheartiste]

Everybody seems to be using AWSTATS so I guess I might as well stick with that. With so much numbers from different analyzers I was just confused.
Thanks for replying guys and I wouldn't mind more input from other forum members.

[dburk]

Originally Posted by zoobie

they are all estimations and I think awstats will show many data such as images appear on your site etc. But the search terms that they arrive to your site should be similar I think.

Hi zoobie,

I have to disagree with you basic premise, these systems use direct measurement not estimation. The only exception being if you have not set up an account with Quantcast and added there code to your pages, they will provide estimates.

I have found that all three of these systems provide reliable data for what they are measuring. The fact is that they measure different things and it is useful to use all three.

AWStats reports what is recorded in your server logs while Analytics and Quantcast use page tagging. These latter two require that you have properly added the code snippits in all the correct places. If you haven't added the codes properly then you will not get accurate data.

Neither server logs nor page tagging will give you 100% effective tracking. Page tagging relies on the visitors browser reporting the analytics information. Sometimes the security settings will prevent this data from being transmitted.

Server logs will accurately track all transaction on your web server regardless of the browser settings, however it will miss many requests due to file caching on the visitor's browser.

The main advantage of page tagging is that the javascript will be called everytime the page is loaded so you can track your visitor's behavior even when pages are loaded from the browser's cache (or proxy server cache).

I recommend that you use all three tracking systems as they each give you a different slice of the data. Quancast is especially useful for capturing demographic data that compares your sites traffic to the rest of the world wide web. Analytics gives your excellent reports particularly related to keywords. AWStats is great for analyzing your server log data and lets you see data that can't be measured by page tagging.

Quantcast is also uniquely useful as a trusted third party verification that is publicly accessible. This can be very useful when selling ads or assessing the value of your site for a sale, investment, other transaction.

By using them all together you get a more complete picture of what's going on. Analyzing the differences and learning exactly why there are discrepancies can be enlightening and very useful.

[Morrow]

Originally Posted by Radix

another vote for Awstats

Yeah I use awstats and google but I prefer awstats

[intelinside]

Originally Posted by Morrow

Yeah I use awstats and google but I prefer awstats

Please Add my vote too

But, I have also found statscounter very useful.

[vaintheartiste]

I just found out that the difference in data reported by Analytics and AWSTATS is brought on by Javascript. Analytics can only track users with javascript enabled browsers while AWSTATS can track both javascript enabled browsers and those without javascript.

[dburk]

Originally Posted by vaintheartiste

I just found out that the difference in data reported by Analytics and AWSTATS is brought on by Javascript. Analytics can only track users with javascript enabled browsers while AWSTATS can track both javascript enabled browsers and those without javascript.

Hi vaintheartiste,

Yes that is correct, but almost no person surfs the web without Javascript enabled these days. It is almost exclusively robot programs that visit without Javascript and you are likely getting a number that is wildly over your true stats. So go by your server logs if you don't care about people, just server load. If you care about people then the other metrics are probably much closer to true numbers.

Also note that Sever logs (AWStats) cannot track page views from cached sources like browser cache or proxy servers. A lot of traffic comes from company proxies and your server logs will only show a tiny fraction of that traffic.

Each of these tools are targeting different metrics, AWStats is simply measuring requests to the server, while GA is measuring browser visits and Quantcast is measuring people. It seems silly to choose one over others, why not use all three?

[vaintheartiste]

@Dburk: I see what you mean. Site meter and Google Analytics have so far been showing virtually the same statistics on my blog. I've also added StatCounter and will monitor all three for a month to see whether I'm better off relying on G.A alone.
I'll also start looking at blocking certain robot programs from my site.
Thanks a lot.