Start with the foundations › Report Suites
Global vs Individual Report Suites
Data in separate report suites can never be combined in a report. That one-way rule, set out in What Are Report Suites, is what makes this decision matter, because "global vs individual" is really one question in disguise: do you want your properties' data to live together, or apart? Everything else follows from that.
To feel why the question has weight, take an automobile manufacturer: three business units, heavy vehicles, commercial vehicles, and consumer vehicles, each with its own website feeding its own individual report suite. Hundreds of thousands of visitors a month, three clean sets of insights. Everything looks sorted.
Now suppose someone points out that these are not three separate audiences. They overlap. Imagine that of every hundred people on the heavy-vehicles site, a meaningful share also visit the consumer-vehicles site. The first reaction is a small disappointment: your true reach is lower than three separate totals suggested, because you have been counting some people twice. But the sharper reaction is the opposite one. Overlap is opportunity. If someone who once bought a commercial vehicle is now reading spec sheets on consumer models, your brand has already earned their trust, and the chance they buy from you again is high. That person is not a rounding error. That person is a business opportunity.
Here is the problem: with three isolated individual suites, Adobe Analytics cannot show you any of this. The boxes are sealed. You cannot tell that the commercial-vehicle buyer and the consumer-vehicle browser are the same human, you cannot watch them move from one site to the next over several weeks, and a rollup will not rescue you, because it only adds totals, it does not connect journeys. The very structure that gave you three tidy reports is the structure hiding your best prospect.
The global strategy: one archive for everything
This is exactly where a global report suite earns its place. A global report suite pours data from all your sites and apps into a single suite. Now the picture is whole. A visitor who moves from the marketing site to the store to the spec sheet is counted as one visitor on one journey, not three strangers in three suites. You can see who crosses between properties, what they looked at, whether they have bought before, and how their interest builds over the weeks. What you do with that is your next strategy, but at least now you can see it. That is why a global suite is the right default for most organizations, and the reason is almost entirely the isolation rule: when everything lives together, every cross-property question stays open.
Giving every team its own view
A global suite raises a fair question: if everything lands in one box, how does each business unit get a focused view of just its own data? There are two answers, and which one you reach for marks the difference between an older setup and a modern one.
For years the answer was multi-suite tagging: a single implementation sends each hit to a global suite and to an individual one at the same time, so leadership gets the whole-estate picture while each team works in its own suite. It works, and many companies still run this way. But it carries a cost, and roughly a decade ago virtual report suites made it largely unnecessary: collect everything into the global suite only, then carve each team's view as a virtual report suite, with no second server call. The global suite did not fall out of favor, it became the foundation. What VRS replaced was the need for those separate individual suites alongside it.
Every extra suite a hit is sent to is another server call, and Adobe bills on server calls, so multi-suite tagging raises your billable volume. The copy sent to the individual suite is a secondary server call. Two things are worth knowing. First, "secondary" does not mean lesser: it is a full copy of the data, with nothing trimmed in quality or features. Second, what it costs depends on your contract. The figure most often quoted is roughly half the primary rate, which applies when your contract provisions for secondary calls; but in other contracts secondary calls deplete your primary commitment, and overage secondary calls can be billed at the full primary rate. Treat "half" as a common case, not a guarantee, and check your own contract. This cost is a large part of why global plus VRS now wins over global plus individual suites.
The individual strategy: deliberately separate archives
Separate suites per property, region, or brand is the less common path, and it should be a deliberate choice, not a default you drift into. It earns its place when separation is a genuine requirement:
- Regulation or legal: data that must be kept separate for compliance reasons.
- Truly different measurement needs: business units whose metrics and variables have almost nothing in common.
- Irreconcilable settings: currencies or time zones that genuinely cannot share one suite.
The price is steep and permanent: you give up ever comparing those properties side by side in a single report. Choose it only when that is an acceptable cost.
The decision is not symmetric, and that is the whole point. From a global suite you can always carve out a narrower, team-specific view later (a virtual report suite). But you can never merge two separate suites back into one, the data was isolated the moment it was collected. Splitting is a one-way door. Defaulting to global keeps your options open; defaulting to individual quietly closes them forever.
Which puts a great deal of weight on that carve-out, and it is fair to be suspicious of it. A team asks for its own data, you tell them to use a view of somebody else's, and it sounds like a fob-off. It is not. Virtual Report Suites is the section that shows why.
This article focuses on the concepts, architecture, and practical guidance behind the topic. For the latest UI walkthroughs and step-by-step implementation instructions, use the links below. They leave this site and open Adobe's own documentation in a new tab.