Efficience of profile script vs native functionnality

[Tienzen]

Hi!
I have got a case that not allow me to use an AB Test to split audience with 50/50.

Exp A (control) > 50%
Group B > 50%
(containing)
  Exp B (visitCount = 1)
  Exp C (visitCount = 2)
  Exp D (visitCount = 3)

To make it work, i have configured a XT activity using a profile script to split audience :

if (!user.get('twogroups')) {
var ran_number = Math.floor(Math.random() * 99);
if (ran_number <= 49) {
return 'ExpA';
} else {
return 'GroupB';
}
}

https://experienceleague.adobe.com/docs/target/using/audiences/visitor-profiles/use-profile-scripts-...

Could you tell me if this method works as efficiently as the native split of an AB Test activity ?

[Ryan_Roberts_ · Accepted solution]

Hi @Tienzen, 

Yes, that should split traffic into 2 groups as efficiently as the native splitter.

Extra tip: if you modify the profile script to simply return the random number between 1-100 you can then use the audience rule to split to groups of: 2, 4, 5, 10, etc. Your current profile script will only allow you to use 2 groups - so it's not potentially as useful to you in the long run that way.

[Tienzen]

Thank you @Ryan_Roberts_ Has the native splitter got a balancing trafic behavior, depending on surplus of visits on an experience compared to the other ? If yes is it possible to replicate this behavior into a profile script ?

[Tienzen]

[duplicate deleted]

[Ryan_Roberts_]

I believe the native splitter is also based on a random number generation. Your profile script should already be mimicking the same behavior. Here's a little in help docs on it. https://experienceleague.adobe.com/docs/target/using/introduction/how-target-works.html?lang=en#a%2F...