{"id":99646,"date":"2024-10-30T09:00:00","date_gmt":"2024-10-30T13:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.crazyegg.com\/blog\/?p=99646"},"modified":"2025-07-15T13:46:26","modified_gmt":"2025-07-15T17:46:26","slug":"usertesting-review","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.crazyegg.com\/blog\/usertesting-review\/","title":{"rendered":"UserTesting Review\u2013The Good and Bad"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

UserTesting is a one-stop solution for UX research teams that conduct both qualitative and quantitative research<\/a>. It has the tools most researchers need, and excels at facilitating collaboration across organizations of all sizes.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Researchers can build and launch new tests quickly with 100+ test templates. Participants can join studies on browsers, tablets, and smartphones without downloading anything to their device. UserTesting is solid, but it isn\u2019t the best solution for everyone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Its robust features come at a cost. While no pricing is shared on the UserTesting website, our research suggests more than $1,250 per month is a starting point. Smaller research teams or those with limited budgets might consider an alternative solution. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

How Does UserTesting Compare to its Closest Competitors<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Organizations looking for an all-in-one tool for UX research usually land on the same handful of options. Maze, Optimal Workshop, and Lyssna are often part of that mix. The solution best suited for you will depend on your specific needs and resources.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here\u2019s how UserTesting compares to all three.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Optimal Workshop vs. UserTesting<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Optimal Workshop<\/a> offers a toolkit that handles UX research with ease. You can conduct interviews, roll out surveys, and conduct first-click tests, card sorts, and tree tests. UserTesting also offers quantitative testing, like card sorts and tree tests, but its emphasis is really on qualitative testing. If you\u2019re an organization that primarily runs quantitative research, Optimal Workshop may be a better option.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Optimal Workshop also comes out ahead on price, both in transparency and costs. There is a monthly individual plan at just $129 that includes all quantitative tool access. To get card sorts and tree tests with UserTesting, you need to jump to the Ultimate plan on its Human Insights platform. While pricing is not available, highest-tier plans tend to be the most expensive with any company.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The place where UserTesting comes out ahead is in qualitative research analysis and insights. While Optimal Workshop offers a Reframer tool to analyze user interview data, UserTesting has a far more powerful EnjoyHQ analytics tool. EnjoyHQ makes quick work of data analysis using AI and data visualizations, something Optimal Workshop doesn\u2019t offer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Read more about Optimal Workshop in our review of the best UX research tools<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Maze vs. UserTesting<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Maze<\/a> and UserTesting both use drag-and-drop functionality to get new tests up and running fast. UserTesting pulls ahead when it comes to the volume and diversity of the templates it offers. Compare UserTesting\u2019s 100+ to Maze\u2019s 55.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Likewise, UserTesting goes the extra mile with its EnjoyHQ insights tool. Teams can quickly create and share feedback, video clips, highlight reels, and AI-powered insights across the organization from an easy-to-understand dashboard. Maze also offers similar functionality, including AI-powered summaries and themes, but UserTesting delivers it in a more robust and integrated way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Where Maze wins over UserTesting is in prototype testing and overall pricing. Maze has the best prototype testing tools available today. With UserTesting starting at more than $1,250 per month, Maze\u2019s free or $99 per month Starter plan are both appealing options. For research teams just starting out or those with limited budgets, Maze is the better choice for the bottom line.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Check out our full Maze review<\/a> to find out more.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lyssna vs. UserTesting<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Lyssna<\/a> is a solid all-around solution that offers a nice mix of quantitative and qualitative research tools. It beats UserTesting in the number of quantitative tools offered, with card sorts, first-click tests, tree tests, five-second tests, and preference tests. But UserTesting comes out ahead with its qualitative testing and analysis. If your research focus is on quantitative data, Lyssna is a solid choice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lyssna also has a respectable participant pool of nearly 700,000 panelists from 124 countries. UserTesting offers its own pool of participants from more than 30 countries (total numbers unknown), supplemented with access to a vetted network of third-party resources. But some reviewers question the quality of UserTesting participants. Lyssna keeps participant recruitment in-house. This closer oversight may matter to some researchers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Where Lyssna definitely comes out ahead is in cost. Even its most expensive Pro plan comes in at $175 per month, which is far lower than UserTesting\u2019s estimated monthly fees. To be fair, comparing Lyssna to UserTesting is a bit like David and Goliath. But if you\u2019re a scrappy startup or budget-conscious organization, you can definitely leverage Lyssna to do great UX research.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Learn more about Lyssna in our review of the top usability testing tools<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

UserTesting: The Good and The Bad<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

UserTesting offers a full array of testing tools and analytics accessible to all teams across an organization. These tools can be used throughout the product development lifecycle, from early days of ideation to product improvements after launch. UserTesting also offers professional services, which is an offering not typically found with its competitors. However, UserTesting isn\u2019t perfect, and its robust offerings might be overkill (and too costly) for some organizations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What UserTesting Is Good At<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

AI-powered insights:<\/strong> One of UserTesting\u2019s most powerful features is its analysis and insights functionality. It leverages both AI and data analytics to synthesize large quantities of data and generate on-demand insights that are easily shareable across the organization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

You get this powerful analysis with a single click. And if you\u2019re still on the fence about AI, every single insight is traceable back to its source data. This makes it easy to verify the accuracy and be confident sharing it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Diverse participant base: <\/strong>The UserTesting network offers participants from more than 30 countries and handles the recruitment, incentive payment, and privacy protection for you. There are demographic filters and custom screening questions you can use to find the best candidates. Participants are rated with additional commentary, giving you real insights before you add them to your own study pool.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

If you can\u2019t find who you\u2019re looking for in UserTesting\u2019s own participant pool, you can leverage the company\u2019s vetted third-party partner network for expanded reach. And if you still can\u2019t find exactly the right participants, UserTesting\u2019s Audience Services team can assist in finding even the most niche participants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Participant-friendly approach:<\/strong> One big hurdle that research teams face is putting too much responsibility on participants to join studies. Whether it is a hesitance to download software or the inconvenience of not having the correct device, otherwise qualified participants self-select out when requirements get too high.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

UserTesting removes this challenge by eliminating the need for study participants to download anything at all to join a study. Participants can also complete studies on any device, including desktop computers, tablets, laptops, and smartphones.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Robust integrations:<\/strong> UserTesting offers a multitude of integrations and plugins, and works with popular tools like Figma, Slack, SurveyMonkey, Qualtrics, Google Analytics, and more. Whether your tech stack includes tools for collaboration<\/a>, digital optimization, customer relationship management<\/a> (CRM), or productivity, UserTesting likely integrates with it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Easy collaboration: <\/strong>UserTesting\u2019s EnjoyHQ platform is a centralized location for teams to collect insights and share analysis across the entire organization. For larger teams with cross-departmental stakeholders and a lot of data coming in from diverse sources, EnjoyHQ can simplify and streamline data collection and dissemination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When you integrate EnjoyHQ with UserTesting\u2019s Human Insights platform, you can embed video clips and AI-generated transcripts into stories and quickly share them with stakeholders. EnjoyHQ also integrates with Google Drive, Jira, and Slack, plus has a public API so you can bring in data from even more sources.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Integrated professional services:<\/strong> UserTesting offers a full suite of aligned professional services to support its customers in different ways. There\u2019s help available for strategic decision-making, research guidance, benchmarking and validating your UX investments, and finding the right participants for even the most niche audience.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Having this breadth of professional service offerings on a UX research platform is a unique find, and one that makes UserTesting stand out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Scalable: <\/strong>UserTesting is a heavy-hitter in the world of UX research tools. It is no surprise the company makes a point to call out its enterprise-level features and functionality, like workspace management, capacity governance, approval flows with reviews, and SSO. This functionality is designed to help big organizations (and those that aspire to reach enterprise status) optimize the UX research platform across the entire organization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Potential UserTesting Drawbacks<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Even though reviewers did have some criticisms about UserTesting, the brand still received consistent 4-5 star ratings from those same reviewers. While the negatives may not be deal-breakers, they still bear calling out. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Clunky to use:<\/strong> More than one UserTesting reviewer on sites like G2 and Capterra noted that getting around in the tool and using its more advanced functionality sometimes delivered a less-than-ideal experience. Clunky general navigation<\/a> was one, as noted by Becky G., a brand optimization specialist at a small organization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Quality of participants:<\/strong> Users pointed out that there is some inconsistency in the quality or breadth of study participants. A consumer goods mid-market user noted an issue with poorly-qualified participants. While replacing participants is straightforward, it adds unnecessary extra time to the overall research process<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

An enterprise-level user noted that the participant network is not fully developed in certain countries<\/a>, which is problematic if a product is targeted to that region. The lack of in-platform translations was also a concern.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Recordings are sometimes subpar:<\/strong> At least one UserTesting customer in the IT field called out ongoing issues with faulty study recordings<\/a>, which results in the potential loss of insights. The same reviewer, though, was quick to point out that the UserTesting team is helpful when trying to resolve the issues.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

A different issue was raised by one Capterra reviewer, Craig S., a small business owner, who cited poor audio and video quality<\/a>. He also mentioned participant quality as another concern.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Limitations on quantitative testing:<\/strong> UserTesting does offer quantitative testing, but its focus is on the qualitative side of UX research. Betsi F., senior UX strategist at an enterprise-level organization, hoped to see additional quantitative functionality added<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Kristen N., marketing manager at Delight, shared that gaining stakeholder buy-in was a challenge<\/a>, as these decision-makers relied primarily on quantitative data.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

UserTesting Pricing, Plans, and Add-Ons<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s hard to dig into UserTesting pricing as the company doesn\u2019t share that information on its website. The UserTesting website does lay out the plans for all its platforms, including its core Human Insights platform.<\/p>\n\n\n\n