Lookback vs. Maze vs. Optimizely Feature Experimentation

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Lookback
Score 7.7 out of 10
N/A
Lookback is a UX research platform for mobile & desktop moderated and unmoderated research, from the company of the same name in Palo Alto.N/A
Maze
Score 8.0 out of 10
N/A
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.
$75
per month
Optimizely Feature Experimentation
Score 8.3 out of 10
N/A
Optimizely Feature Experimentation unites feature flagging, A/B testing, and built-in collaboration—so marketers can release, experiment, and optimize with confidence in one platform.N/A
Pricing
LookbackMazeOptimizely Feature Experimentation
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
Professional
$75
per month 3+ seats
Organization
custom pricing
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
LookbackMazeOptimizely Feature Experimentation
Free Trial
NoNoNo
Free/Freemium Version
NoYesYes
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNoYes
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup feeRequired
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
LookbackMazeOptimizely Feature Experimentation
Considered Multiple Products
Lookback

No answer on this topic

Maze
Chose Maze
UserTesting
  • Expensive
  • Not as modern a UX as Maze for contributors, stakeholders, and testers
Chose Maze
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 …
Chose Maze
Maze User Testing is brilliant to test with a large volume of people and if you’re not after particular qualitative insights, like UserTesting would offer. The card sorting feature is basic and not as mature as Optimal Workshop would offer but it does the job and can be used in …
Optimizely Feature Experimentation

No answer on this topic

Best Alternatives
LookbackMazeOptimizely Feature Experimentation
Small Businesses
Smartlook
Smartlook
Score 8.6 out of 10
Smartlook
Smartlook
Score 8.6 out of 10
GitLab
GitLab
Score 8.7 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
Optimal
Optimal
Score 9.1 out of 10
Optimal
Optimal
Score 9.1 out of 10
GitLab
GitLab
Score 8.7 out of 10
Enterprises
Optimal
Optimal
Score 9.1 out of 10
Optimal
Optimal
Score 9.1 out of 10
GitLab
GitLab
Score 8.7 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
LookbackMazeOptimizely Feature Experimentation
Likelihood to Recommend
9.0
(2 ratings)
6.8
(9 ratings)
8.3
(48 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
-
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
4.5
(2 ratings)
Usability
8.0
(1 ratings)
8.0
(1 ratings)
7.7
(27 ratings)
Support Rating
-
(0 ratings)
10.0
(1 ratings)
3.6
(1 ratings)
Implementation Rating
-
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
10.0
(1 ratings)
Product Scalability
-
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
5.0
(1 ratings)
User Testimonials
LookbackMazeOptimizely Feature Experimentation
Likelihood to Recommend
Lookback
Best suited to conduct remote interviews that are moderated and facilitated by the interviewer/researcher.
Not the best if you want to do it unmoderated, there are much more sophisticated tools out there. Unfortunately, for a design research team that does both these kids of research, it can be hard to get budgets to get two softwares and hence the Unmoderated Feature can seem super undercooked and doesn’t really do the job.
Otherwise it’s a great tool
Read full review
Maze
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.
Read full review
Optimizely
Based on my experience with Optimizely Feature Experimentation, I can highlight several scenarios where it excels and a few where it may be less suitable. Well-suited scenarios: - Multi-Channel product launches - Complex A/B testing and feature flag management - Gradual rollout and risk mitigation Less suited scenarios: - Simple A/B tests (their Web Experimentation product is probably better for that) - Non-technical team usage -
Read full review
Pros
Lookback
  • Organization of user interviews
  • Sharing of interviews across the team
  • Creating highlights of insights
Read full review
Maze
  • Reporting is top-tier with filtration, heatmaps, user data, and public URLs for stakeholders
  • Figma integration with user testing software is about as fast as it gets
  • The experience for testers is practically seamless going from our site to a Maze. Loads of completed Mazes.
Read full review
Optimizely
  • It is easy to use any of our product owners, marketers, developers can set up experiments and roll them out with some developer support. So the key thing there is this front end UI easy to use and maybe this will come later, but the new features such as Opal and the analytics or database centric engine is something we're interested in as well.
Read full review
Cons
Lookback
  • Unmoderated interviews is still under cooked as a feature
  • The process of how participants have to download an app to start an interview is a large friction point for us
Read full review
Maze
  • Sometimes Maze breaks the responsiveness of our product
  • Also the analytics is not very useful for us. We do manual walkthrough of products
  • Few testers that we hire does not read the instructions very well and will abandon the flow
Read full review
Optimizely
  • Would be nice to able to switch variants between say an MVT to a 50:50 if one of the variants is not performing very well quickly and effectively so can still use the standardised report
  • Interface can feel very bare bones/not very many graphs or visuals, which other providers have to make it a bit more engaging
  • Doesn't show easily what each variant that is live looks like, so can be hard to remember what is actually being shown in each test
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
Lookback
No answers on this topic
Maze
No answers on this topic
Optimizely
Competitive landscape
Read full review
Usability
Lookback
Once you understand how the interface works, it works great, but there is a learning curve
Read full review
Maze
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
Read full review
Optimizely
Easy to navigate the UI. Once you know how to use it, it is very easy to run experiments. And when the experiment is setup, the SDK code variables are generated and available for developers to use immediately so they can quickly build the experiment code
Read full review
Support Rating
Lookback
No answers on this topic
Maze
Any issues that presented themselves were dealt with in a quick and efficient manner and fully rectified by the knowledgeable team over at Maze.
Read full review
Optimizely
Support was there but it was pretty slow at most times. Only after escalation was support really given to our teams
Read full review
Implementation Rating
Lookback
No answers on this topic
Maze
No answers on this topic
Optimizely
It’s straightforward. Docs are well written and I believe there must be a support. But we haven’t used it
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
Lookback
Zoom was way more expensive and it o is designed to other things apart from just running qualitative interviews. It also requires a different kind of approval and different approval processes to go through when trying to get it simply for qualitative research purposes.
Lookback records, scribes, helps observe and provides a sentiment check as well in the price that it does
Read full review
Maze
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.
Read full review
Optimizely
When Google Optimize goes off we searched for a tool where you can be sure to get a good GA4 implementation and easy to use for IT team and product team. Optimizely Feature Experimentation seems to have a good balance between pricing and capabilities. If you are searching for an experimentation tool and personalization all in one... then maybe these comparison change and Optimizely turns to expensive. In the same way... if you want a server side solution. For us, it will be a challenge in the following years
Read full review
Scalability
Lookback
No answers on this topic
Maze
No answers on this topic
Optimizely
had troubles with performance for SSR and the React SDK
Read full review
Return on Investment
Lookback
  • It allows us to understand our customers’ problems in a very team compatible way.
Read full review
Maze
  • Easy to run quant test
  • Easy to test with large number of people on production
  • Easy to run unmoderated competitor studies
Read full review
Optimizely
  • We have a huge, noteworthy ROI case study of how we did a SaaS onboarding revamp early this year. Our A/B test on a guided setup flow improved activation rates by 20 percent, which translated to over $1.2m in retained ARR.
Read full review
ScreenShots

Maze Screenshots

Screenshot of Maze

Optimizely Feature Experimentation Screenshots

Screenshot of Feature Flag Setup. Here users can run flexible A/B and multi-armed bandit tests, as well as:

- Set up a single feature flag to test multiple variations and experiment types
- Enable targeted deliveries and rollouts for more precise experimentation
- Roll back changes quickly when needed to ensure experiment accuracy and reduce risks
- Increase testing flexibility with control over experiment types and delivery methodsScreenshot of Audience Setup. This is used to target specific user segments for personalized experiments, and:

- Create and customize audiences based on user attributes
- Refine audience segments to ensure the right users are included in tests
- Enhance experiment relevance by setting specific conditions for user groupsScreenshot of Experiment Results, supporting the analysis and optimization of experimentation outcomes. Viewers can also:

- examine detailed experiment results, including key metrics like conversion rates and statistical significance
- Compare variations side-by-side to identify winning treatments
- Use advanced filters to segment and drill down into specific audience or test dataScreenshot of a Program Overview. These offer insights into any experimentation program’s performance. It also offers:

- A comprehensive view of the entire experimentation program’s status and progress
- Monitoring for key performance metrics like test velocity, success rates, and overall impact
- Evaluation of the impact of experiments with easy-to-read visualizations and reporting tools
- Performance tracking of experiments over time to guide decision-making and optimize strategiesScreenshot of AI Variable Suggestions. These enhance experimentation with AI-driven insights, and can also help with:

- Generating multiple content variations with AI to speed up experiment design
- Improving test quality with content suggestions
- Increasing experimentation velocity and achieving better outcomes with AI-powered optimizationScreenshot of Schedule Changes, to streamline experimentation. Users can also:

- Set specific times to toggle flags or rules on/off, ensuring precise control
- Schedule traffic allocation percentages for smooth experiment rollouts
- Increase test velocity and confidence by automating progressive changes