UserTesting

UserTesting allows for a quicker recruiting process for our studies. Additionally, UserTesting has more unmoderated research features and capabilities. I think that their payment model is also easier than UserInterviews. We typically user UserTesting for reaching our hard to reach segments and recruiting prospective users not already within our product user population.

I prefer Maze as it is much more intuitive.

This is the only comparable platform I've used.

The large audience pool, unlimited testing and intuitive platform

The quality of the participants: they usually have good feedback and act like "professional" users. Which is good when we want a few insights in a short amount of time.
Also, the interface is good. I miss having more features, like a good transcription tool like we have in Condens.

As we have a bigger UX team, it helps us make user research a team sport. It helps us scale and speed up learning without creating bottlenecks which might happen if we were to use smaller tools and platforms.

In terms of overall cost and value, UserTesting stacks up well. While the platform's overall usability could be improved, and it lacks certain features that other platforms offer, we could not find a better platform for quick, reliable insights in a recent comparison.

I've used dscout, and although I prefer UserTesting.com, I will say that dscout really excels at the diary study format. It would be great if UserTesting had a tool/tools that facilitated diary studies better.

UserTesting's platform is the most comprehensive. While it may not have the best analytics features, survey features, recruitment features, etc, it has everything you need to run evaluative and generative research.

User Interviews, like the name mentions, is highly focused on exactly that. The issue with this platform is that for any other type of testing you need to purchase third party integrations. This ends up costing more and gets complicated. I do enjoy the tool for what it is but wouldn’t opt for it as a UX Designer.

UserTesting is superior because of their vast panel, speed, and intuitiveness.

I would say the merger of UserZoom definitely has helped Usertesting to be then number 1 tool in the market. dscout works great for diary studies but other than that has some limitations and is not as robust as usertesting.com

User Testing is so much easier to use than other user testing tools. It's also pretty good for transcription and now they do transcription in Spanish, which is also an important part of my work and that was one of the reasons I used Dovetail. Now I still use Dovetail as it's a much better option for a research repository than user testing when using multiple research tools.

I wasn't the person who selected Usertesting, but I did use this in previous company so I was aware of their capabilities. I really enjoy how usertesting applies their research methods and have a greater support. The UserZoom was easy to handle but I don't remember how it was the internal recruitment in there, for example. And I really liked the way Lookback was easy to handle for users better than Usertesting.

Only used User Testing, got lucky out of the gate and never saw a need to change to an inferior platform.

UserTesting is much better than UserZoom because their panel of participants is much bigger, in case we needed to find a specific target audience that take a long time to find and source. Also, UserTesting has a much easier to use platform and is more intuitive and simpler to use. UserTesting uses Zoom while UserZoom has their own video recording software which is not easy to use.

UserTesting has a robust panel, and ease of setting up tasks. Lookback was particularly helpful to set up observation sessions and note taking.

They always have available studies

Previously used UserZoom. They did the job to a certain extent but after not being completely satisfied and shopping around we re-trialed UserTesting and [were] pleasantly surprised. Much better than when we had previously trialed UserTesting 12 months previously. Much nicer user interface, more flexibility in terms of functionality and features, and much quicker response times for tests being completed.

Content square, quantum metric, Guidepoint, Adobe, Foresee/Verint

User Testing provided me with several research methodologies especially when it comes to qualitative data about users.
It is easy to use and required less learning curve
User Testing offers a high quality panel, it is easy to get the required number of participants for my research studies
Offers great learning resources

User Testing is great for:
Script
Creating clips
Dashboard organisation

UserTesting has a better panel that is larger, more far reaching, and faster. UserZoom's GO platform has a better UI and a far better pricing structure, but their panel is smaller and studies take longer to fill. UserZoom has a poor panel for our needs. It is ok for general population with no screening criteria. Userlytics is fine, but it's pretty basic, and they also have a challenging credit model. I do prefer platforms that allow you to bring your own users at no additional cost, because you're already paying for usage of the platform.

UserTesting is the best on the market for the ability to really get targeted.

Platform simplicity first, good pricing packages, good testing type coverage for multi-purpose use, good audience/panel. dscout is still very specialized in diary studies and does not offer a good platform for usability testing and high-level visual concept evaluation. Usabilla has less possibility to personalize survey studies with visual elements and widget integration of invasion/Figma prototype to expose more UX/UI details to users. Maze was the real competitor in the more wide and generic usage, but they are a bit more complex and less straightforward than UserTesting, especially for UX/UI validation.