Maze is a rapid user testing platform from Maze.design in Paris, designed to give users actionable user insights, in a matter of hours. The vendor states that with it, users can test remotely, autonomously, and collaboratively.
When looking for tools that could help us understand our customers better, we needed something that would be easy to use, had the functionality and flexibility of running multiple types of tests and exercises, and allowed our team to be able to do these tests quickly. Only Maze …
+ I strongly believe that this tool helps when a firm has good user count (depends on business model) as most of these tools are data friends. More data - more valuable insights+ Best fit if someone who is looking for deeper insights of individual page - Not suggested for very fewer visits of a website. Suggested toimprove better visit count
Maze User Testing is great if you're interested in doing user research from the comfort of your own desk. You can easily setup usability tests, surveys, card sorting and tree tests among other things to get a better understanding of how customers use your product. The only limitation at the moment with Maze that I can identify is only being able to do unmoderated tests, so if you'd like to be able to ask follow up questions in the moment, Maze is not the tool for you.
Provides heatmaps that shows you the elements on your site that are and aren't performing well.
Provides scrollmaps so you can see how far down a page users are scrolling and which content never gets seen.
Screenshots show you how your website looks across a variety of different devices.
Provides a type of clickmap called confetti that enables you visualise clicks by segments - device, new/returning visitors, campaigns and other metrics.
The largest thing we've struggled with is the Optimizely integration. I've contacted customer service a few times to get it properly setup. Customer Service is always friendly and helpful; they provide clear steps to get it setup. Unfortunately despite clear instructions, they are tedious, and if not completed in the correct order, the integration with Optimizely does not work. My success rate with the integration is less than 55%.
It's a great tool considering how inexpensive it is. If used correctly and you have a plan for tracking your websites, this tool can make a world of a difference. If you are not going to sit down and take the time to make a plan for how to use this tool, I would say it is not worth your time. Yes, you can look at items on your website that need to be changed, but without a consistent plan, other important items that need changing can be lost in the mix. Make sure you have enough time and energy to invest in this and it will be well worth it
Crazy Egg is extremely easy to set up and use, and very well done from a user experience standpoint. It is really helpful that I can give stakeholders access to the interface and get them interacting with it with minimal training. The A/B testing is the easiest I have ever used, with minimal performance impact to the website.
Maze is easy to use most of the times. It is easy to integrate with Figma, It is easy to find testers worldwide with required filters. Maze gives recorded videos which are helpful in debugging and understanding the problem with flows. A/B testing is easy to add and test. Overall Maze is very easy to use
It's slow to post data, and slow to get a snapshot to finally be active (i.e. not pending). Not intolerable, but would be nice to see data within a couple hours. Often have to wait to the next day.
I think support is an area where Crazy Egg is lacking. I would love to have a quarterly check-in with a Crazy Egg rep to understand what kinds of changes have been made to the platform and what is on the horizon. I also think a quick consulting sessions with a rep could be extremely beneficial, as I'm sure there are ways to use the tool that we haven't even thought about yet that would be extremely insightful for our team.
I will say that I didn't evaluate or select Crazy Egg, it's been a legacy tool that has been at the company before me. Honestly, we're not even sure of all of the features/functionality that we can use. Me, as a UXR, I think there are some other tools that would help me more in gaining visibility into what our users are doing on our website. I've evaluated other tools that are more aligned with UXR. However, if we properly paired it with experimentation, this might be more of a valuable tool for us.
A Lookback is an alternative option if you think Maze User Testing is quite expensive for you, but look back has a different approach to Maze User Testing. Lookback focuses on qualitative usability testing instead of quantitative UserTesting. And also, Maze User Testing has a free option but Lookback doesn't have it, but Lookback has a cheaper option at $19/month than Maze.
Its reliability (not scaleability, as the question asks for, sorry) is pretty good but through our testing we know that some clicks do not get recorded. It doesn't bother us a lot because we look at the aggregate of thousands of visits, but we do know it misses things. As for scaleability, it's about right. You really don't want zillions of clicks per snapshot - the screen just turns to 100% dots and you lose the ability to differentiate different screen areas. We find that 25,000 clicks for a page gives us a really good view.
