Tester skill and experience is varied so it's important for the project manager to properly understand your requirements. The better they can build a team to suit your needs, the better your results will be. This will require a number of test cycles and fine tuning to get it right. It also fares better with consumer applications which are designed for the "common" user. For example, if you have a niche product designed for businesses, this type of testing may not be a good fit.
UserZoom is well suited for usability testing, I found specifically around test websites and marketing materials. I was able to invite others to participate and watch as well as screen share so that it was an interactive session. Other tools I have used have been a little better with the video output and transcripts of each session so that we could capture notes quickly, but overall it was a good tool to use to test.
Quantitative testing can be done on the cheap compared to other quant tools or vendors... once you buy the license, you only pay for additional recruiting and you are managing the project, so there isn't the high cost of having other vendors doing the project management or running a survey etc.
Farily robust means of tracking and recording data. I also relied heavily on the excel spreadsheet of all the raw data, which you can have UZ customize for you to get what you need.
Great support system from the UserZoom team - they have researchers who can help with coding and also provide research support for a very good price.
Also they have tree testing, card sorting, survey capabilities (in addition to usability testing)... and mobile testing. and they seem to be continously be developing the tool to support additional methods.
In using MBM (Mobile Beta Management), it would be better to have the surveys be based on completion of a specific task instead of time or number of app access. This might be a little more complex to set up, but would be well worth it.
A "stakeholder management" view would be nice to allow those not normally using the tool to get a quick status of testing.
A "stakeholder management" view for MBM would be nice to allow those not normally using the tool to get a quick status of progress and user feedback.
Compared with some other tools, because their video conferencing platform is web-based (vs. using Zoom, which has a desktop app), I find the connection buffers a lot and it's kind of annoying
Their screening tool on the UserZoom side (not Go) is clunky. Just let me select May, Must, or Should not for criteria rather than the weird interface design they have now.
Logic panel is a little confusing, sometimes I do a double-take, sometimes it's wonky and resets itself. It's just not as easy to use as it could be.
They haven't integrated UserZoom and UserZoom Go (formerly Validately)
It's expensive!
We signed up for a high sample size license with unlimited tests, but we're finding their panel doesn't fill as fast as their biggest competitor, UserTesting. We've struggled to fill n=100 sample tests with fairly general criteria.
A lot of their licenses only allow limited concurrent studies, whereas UserTesting had unlimited tests that you could launch at a time. It's slowed us down.
The one missing point is for the price - it's quite expensive to maintain the service to the extent of how we use it (dozens of test cycles and hundreds of test case hours on monthly basis). However the benefits still weights the price, especially when thinking of the price of potential hot fixes. Still, the price can be a reason to take a look on how competition is doing.
I'm actually trying to get a license for my current job at my current company (recently moved to a new company). I gave it this rating because I am about to go to our executive to ask that we purchase it! I know that there will be value because we are forecasting a high volume of research next year
The UI and the whole app is updated on regular basis, quite often actually. There are some cool features, like integration with several other bug tracking tools, which makes the bug management really easy. However there are some key usability issues within some of the less used workflows, which brings the score down a bit. They need to work on better switching between products and better bug search, especially across purchased products.
Overall, it was fairly easy to use. Especially if you are familiar with this type of product. We were able to use it for testing pretty much right after we got it (same day) and didn't have many issues figuring out how to invite, test, and share which was great.
I know the score doesn't really correspond with my earlier answers, but I have really special relationship with the Applause people. I don't really go through official support. I rather use my internal connections to make my request handled as soon as possible - and it works really well! I don't need to go through the official channels. And it's known that the unofficial ones are much more effective. I can confirm!
From my experience, the UserZoom team has really done a great job answering the limited questions we have given them thus far. I think the platform is popular enough that many of my questions have been answered by their help pages - or other online content with helpful tips and tricks. I think the community has done a nice job of providing end-user tutorials for those who are new to the platform.
I didn't need to be involved at all. It was seamless from our perspective. All products were inserted in by Vendor, only Test Cycles we needed to insert ourselves initially. Now even that is handled by Vendor. The only thing we need to pay attention now is - to request cycles at the right time and review the bugs found during the test cycles. Nothing else. Very good experience!
By the time we signed the contract, there was no competition to Applause (back in time the company was called uTest). Ever since, we didn't evaluate anyone else because we built a very close relationship, which works for both sides. I think Applause is the furthest in building the test community
Client selected it due to how they used it, pricing, and what it could do for them. It's about the same as these other tools but UsabilityHub let's you run multiple types of task in one test, and UserTesting still has a bigger panel I think
- we were able to provide good QA on an increased number of deliverables in a shorter period of time.
- great interaction with the Applause team, test leads and others
- high quality candidates added to our team
Negative
- the contract model (based on number of projects for specified monthly periods) was a little tricky for our development life cycles and left us at times wanting to engage test cycles but unable to do so while simultaneously having a project sitting idle for weeks after test cycles completed. Our business model was not a great fit for the contract model.
Making informed decisions: repeat testing before launching the app/website to reduce errors in the future
Guarantee customers' satisfaction: ensure the errors are reduced to the minimum so that the purchase process is smooth and there will be no need to reach out to our customer support team
