Mbox vs AT.JS



Can someone point me to a side by side comparison (pros and cons) of the old mbox vs the at.js?  I need to make an informed decision as to what type to use. Our organization just upgraded to AEM 6.2 and from what I can tell the new at.js is not compatible, is this true? If it's not true, can you point me to some literature so that I can inform my executives and make the case for the Adobe Target upgrade?  Any help would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance. 

Accepted Solutions (1)

Accepted Solutions (1)



Hi ,

Yes, at.js is not currently compatible with the embedded Target integration with Adobe Experience Manager (all versions). We recommend that you use mbox.js or  Contact your Customer Success Manager or Consultant to discuss options. This functionality is planned for a future AEM release.

The at.js library offers several improvements over the mbox.js library, including:

  • Completely asynchronous communication via cross domain AJAX
  • Important: Although at.js communicates with the Target servers asynchronously, the at.js file itself must load synchronously in the <head> section of your page. Ideally, it should be one of the first scripts loaded. Once loaded, at.js executes mbox calls asynchronously through XMLHttpRequest, and does not block page rendering.
  • No more blocking calls
  • No document.write() used
  • No immediate execution of JavaScript in Target responses
  • Better timeout and error handling
  • Customizable timeout per call
  • No reloads on timeouts
  • Functions designed specifically for single-page apps/MVC frameworks

For more Information on at.js , Please see link

For more Information on mbox.js, Please see link

Thanks & Regards

Parit Mittal

Answers (1)

Answers (1)




Hi @DaniTee

Our next Adobe Target Skill Builder Webinar is right around the corner on May 5th, and will be presented by Adobe Target Product Management on migrating Adobe Target’s mbox.js to At.js. Check out this community discussion to register today. Hope you can make it!