UserTesting helps UX researchers, designers, product teams, and marketers gather actionable insights through research, testing, and feedback. With a network of real people ready to share their perspectives, UserTesting enables organizations to make customer-first decisions at scale.
Crazy Egg is much better than Google Analytics at user experience analysis and making real, practical improvements to the website, but falls short on audience demographic information. We use both for different types of analysis. I prefer the user experience and ease of use in …
We felt that Crazy Egg is easy to set up and use when compared to other tools. Also, the pricing is affordable so we gave it a try and it works for us.
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 …
We selected Crazy Egg because it was cheaper and simpler to implement than other tools we evaluated. Other tools felt too complicated for the first step in heat mapping, but as a growing organization trying to learn more about our users, it felt like the optimal first step for …
Hotjar is more expensive than Crazy Eggs, and we needed a tool to fit the budget for small comp. With more time, we could have tested it deeply also to have a better opinion, it seems to be great too
I have not used another software all that similar to Crazy Egg. I find Crazy Egg to be a unique tool to incorporate into your analytics, though I have seen similar software out there.
If I were in charge of the purchase decision, I probably would've gone with HotJar, as they have additional qualitative data collection abilities other than heat and click maps. However, I inherited the purchase decision. Crazy Egg has been great for our click and heatmap needs.
It is very simple to use, everything from setting up to seeing the results. You can easily export everything into a JPG or PDF and share it with clients. CrazyEgg is also more value oriented with a lower price point.
There are a lot of tools with similar feature and closely equal pricing- This factor is the most confusing. As we need something for our website and not every tool has everything and it took time for us to understand this. We choose Crazy Egg for its ease of using and anyone …
Crazy Egg a bit low on features and has a not so friendly interface. But depending on the complexity of your team/projects/experience in digital marketing, it is a great place to start. It's budget friendly. If you have an advanced analytics or A/B testing solution it's a nice …
I've used Tealeaf which does click tracking, but the shortcoming is that it does it only on truly clickable elements. You miss out on the non-clickable elements that are being clicked, which is really valuable information. IBM sells an upgrade that adds that, but it costs a …
ClickTale has more options than Crazy Egg - both in terms of heatmaps, and additional tools (like session replays and form analytics), but is also much more expensive.
Lucky Orange is priced similarly to Crazy Egg, and has many more features, but doesn't support different …
We've never used ClickTale and it was obvious that they offered a lot for businesses. The reason why we chose Crazy Egg is because it fit our business needs and scale perfectly. We do not utilize the software as much as we should; however, when we do use it, we gain a lot of …
ClickTale is the big competitor. It has more features such as mouse tracking which is super valuable. When we use Crazy Egg, it's for the following reasons: 1) a lot cheaper, 2) the quantitative Overview and List reports, 3) the fact that often what's offered by Crazy Egg is …
Google Analytics offers features similar to Crazy Egg, but Crazy Egg's heatmap takes it over the edge. The heatmap goes beyond what a click-log offers by offering a big-picture view of user behavior.
Google Analytics has its place and is very useful but Crazy Egg provides that extra visual benefit that makes the analytics easy to understand for everyone involved.
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose Crazy Egg
The only other tool that does something similar is Google Analytic's in-page analytics. I'm sure you *could* set up similar filters but for a marketer that doesn't write RegEx on a daily basis, it's so much easier to use the pre-existing tools built into Crazy Egg. The time …
I have not evaluated any other platforms. Since 2013 or so, I've been a dedicated user of the UserTesting platform, so unfortunately I can't speak on any other platforms... I don't have experience using any of the competitors.
We evaluated a range of research tools within the UX team, including UserZoom, Lookback, Maze, Optimal Workshop, and UserTesting, and, in the end, concluded that UserTesting had the most comprehensive offer in the market. The only issue we found was that UserTesting appeared …
UserTesting is probably the most polished with the largest tester pool, fastest turnaround, and great tools for both moderated and unmoderated tests. Userlytics is a solid alternative, especially for the budget-conscious. It supports usability testing on lots of devices, and …
We use both UserTesting and Userlytics in conjunction with each other. Userlytics we find to be stronger with 1-2-1 moderated study set up due to it being really simple and intuitive for both the researcher and the participant to use. Userlytics also utilises AI analysis of …
UserTesting is very much a usability testing tool. dscout has much more robust functionality and feels like a more complete user research tool, and I prefer the quality of the panel. However, the UserTesting panel is much larger, and works well when you have lower barriers to …
UserTesting is far more advanced than Userbob. It allows a lot more flexibility in the type of testing we run and specifically how we gather respondents to this.
Most tests are unmoderated, similar to Maze, which I would suggest is the most comparable in platform. I find …
UserTesting is not a one-size-fits-all approach, but it excels in certain areas. Its user-friendly UI and speedy test launch make it excellent for companies that require immediate user feedback. Budget-conscious firms may find UserTesting's cost-effectiveness appealing, …
They all have different needs but we used the others to try and do what we wanted before we switched to UserTesting. we wanted to utilize as much of our audience as possible before but we noticed that people who had familiarity with our products would breeze through the testing.
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 …
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.
Crazy Egg is great if you have static content and want to be able to easily set up heatmaps and scrollmaps to see how people interact with your webpages across different devices types. Straightforward and reliable. In circumstances when you want fast turnarounds, Crazy Egg isn't the right tool as the visualisations often take the better part of a day to generate. It also doesn't perform well if your site has dynamic content - either AJAX-driven or dynamically expanding.
UserTesting has been great for moderated customer interviews/usability testing as well as for unmoderated testing of messaging, imagery, prototypes and live experiences. I would say that the scope of what you want needs to be limited, as the participants are only paid so much and tests are supposed to not exceed a certain amount of time. For customer interviews, I think it can be difficult to onboard customers to UserTesting if they have never used it before. If I set up interviews, I don't even have them use the UserTesting scheduling tool, I actually set up all the interviews with the customers myself through the tool (being mindful of time zones!). When we run the meeting, they really don't even know UserTesting is involved. Might be nice for UserTesting to allow the upload/connecting to of a Zoom interview and let it do the transcription/analysis from there.
Shows us exactly where users click on a page. Literally, the exact spot. This is useful in many different ways. You can see what links/buttons are clicked the most. You can see if a key CTA on the page IS NOT clicked - maybe you need a new design or the placement of that CTA is poor.
You can see if users are clicking a spot on the page that is not actually actionable. Maybe your treatment of some text or an image makes it appear that an item is linked, but it is not actually linked. You can see that people are clicking on that item, and either go ahead and link it, or else change the design to look less 'clickable'.
You can see what percentage of users actually view the different areas within your page. This is very useful when you run into a key stakeholder that demands certain content be above 'the fold'. Trying to explain to a non-technical person that 'the fold' is entirely dependent upon the user's screen size and resolution can be frustrating for both the stakeholder and yourself. Instead, using Crazy Egg's scrollmap feature, you can visually show that stakeholder that, for instance, 80% of users view the content that appears within the top 600 pixels of page height.
The design of both the heatmaps and scrollmaps is fantastic.
The 'page camera' software they offer works very well once you get the hang of it. This allows you to run tests on pages that include dynamic content (like a shopping cart product category page).
Quality of participant pool - many are career testers, and many are untruthful. Since sessions are auto-scheduled if the screener is past, you often don't know until they've completed the test. Allow double screening or be more stringent in removing users from the platform.
Unfinished products - focus on making one product the best it can be before moving on to a new one. Unmoderated testing is still missing features (randomization of 3 or more prototypes, etc.)
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
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
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.
It can be difficult to organize our tests and go back and find information. I think the AI tools are helping and will help with this, but for now it is time consuming to sort through all of the tests and information and then synthesize it and share it with others. It just takes a lot of time.
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 have contacted UserTesting's customer service online, by email, or by phone a few times, and each time, I have encountered the same professionalism and expertise. Even in person during a work event, they were there, and it was the same experience.
From a technical perspective, the implementation was extremely smooth. Most of the change management / implementation hurdles were clearing use of the tool through our various security, legal, and information privacy teams. Once these concerns were addressed (UserTesting.com was very helpful in providing all the needed documentation), the implementation process was very simple and we were able to get going right away.
There are a lot of tools with similar feature and closely equal pricing- This factor is the most confusing. As we need something for our website and not every tool has everything and it took time for us to understand this. We choose Crazy Egg for its ease of using and anyone can be trained to use it. The main reason to chose Crazy Egg is the ease of creating snapshots and downloadable features. For me personally -the "confetti" feature helped a lot and its the main feature which is like a ALL IN 1.
We evaluated a range of research tools within the UX team, including UserZoom, Lookback, Maze, Optimal Workshop, and UserTesting, and, in the end, concluded that UserTesting had the most comprehensive offer in the market. The only issue we found was that UserTesting appeared to be prohibitively expensive at first glance. In the end, however, the deal struck to get UserTesting for the UX team proved to be sufficiently competitive for us to proceed.
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.
Positive Impact: Answering questions that analytics cannot. i.e. Are people seeing the PayPal button? We can measure how many people start the PayPal process on our site. However, its hard to know if low numbers are because of low interest or because our customers are missing the option.
Positive Impact: Measuring user engagement for page types to determine what elements on the page are most important to our customers.
Positive Impact: Lower cost than competitors to use helpful engagement tracking software. Currently, we're not consistently using Crazy Egg for user engagement so the $50 a month is perfect for our current needs.