EDIUS Pro is a nonlinear 4k and HDR video editing application from Belden company Grass Valley.
$199
One Time Fee
Screencastify
Score 8.5 out of 10
N/A
Screencastify is a suite of video-creation tools for the classroom, from the company of the same name Chicago. It is used in K-12 classrooms around the world, for teachers and students, to create instructional videos, record presentations, and give better feedback, and to support remote learning.
$15
per month per user
UserTesting
Score 8.4 out of 10
N/A
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.
EDIUS is well suited for: -News production -Multi-camera productions -Documentaries -General purpose television productions -Corporate videos, YouTube videos etc. EDIUS is less appropriate for: -Cinematography -Special Effects -Commercials production
Screencastify is great for beginning video creators or teachers who need a tool to quickly record a screen. For those with a budget, the paid features offers basic editing and the ability to embed questions, which can make for a more polished and meaningful video. Screencastify is not for users who want to create a more polished video with an introduction or other media that needs to be included, such as background music or other images. My go to - if it's quick and easy, use Screencastify. If I want to make in-depth edits, use another solution.
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.
It's the perfect editing software for news programs with easy voice overs and fast editing and rendering time.
Very light program runs almost on any PC! It can handle almost all today's available codecs and video formats along with any kind of graphics, sounds, and other media.
A real multimedia editor!
Fastest software camera stabilization I have seen so far with excellent results!
Fastest and most convenient multi-camera production editing ever!
Sometimes there are restrictions around types of research that can be used for moderated user-testing with our own users.
For tests on relatively small areas of a website or app, the AI analysis seems rather overblown, like it's trying too hard to come up with something insightful when the test is actually about something quite small (e.g. structure of a mobile app menu).
It's difficult to invite our own users to unmoderated user-testing because they wouldn't know how the UserTesting interface works - this is particularly an issue for mobile research.
I'm very happy with my experience of the product and the level of service and learning resources they provide. If the service becomes more expensive than it currently is then we might not be able to justify additional cost - but this is theoretical. I would recommend UserTesting and would ideally renew our contract.
It's very good, I have used other tools in the past and this is by far the most intuitive and user friendly. Testament to this is the ease with which other non researchers who have been onboarded to the tool with our additional seat have found it easy to use
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.
Loom and Screencastify are the most direct comparison. They both are Chrome extensions that have a low learning curve for beginner users. Loom offers a pro license free to educators, which allows for unlimited numbers of recordings and a 45-minute cap on recording length, perfect for lessons. Screencastify's pro features are paid for but are also more in-depth. Their editing is more robust, allowing users to trim in the middle, not just the edges. Users also get unlimited recordings and no cap on video length, and some storage depending on the tier purchased. Screencastify also offers volume discounts, which can help reduce the cost significantly. Educators can also create assignments in Screencastify, which is unique to this product. Camtasia is a full-fledged editor and screen recorder, so a full comparison isn't fair, since the products have two different intended uses. Camtasia offers robust features to make a polished final video
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