Lyssna vs. Maze vs. Userlytics

UsabilityHub is well suited for remote unmoderated testing. Responses are captured very quickly and live updates allow the user to keep track of how the test is performing. The types of testing that make the most sense to use on UsabilityHub are preference test, first click test, navigational, and design surveys. It is less appropriate for one-on-one testing and lengthy questionnaires.

Incentivized

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.

Incentivized

Userlytics would be appropriate to use if you were investigating UX on your website, or wanted to identify any pain points which could be causing lower conversion rates. Not only will it be a way to gain direct user feedback, but it enhances your visual ability to see how a user progresses through your website. It is well suited if you have less time to conduct moderated user research at a facility or a client doesn't quite have the budget for that. It may be less appropriate if a client wants a bigger project with larger budgets and more time. In this case, moderated, face-to-face research may be more appropriate.

Incentivized

• Rapid user feedback
• Demographic targeting
• Well presented results
• Easy to use
• Relatively inexpensive

Incentivized

• 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.

• Excellent customer service
• Fast response rate
• Implementing new features

Incentivized

• Add additional demographic sorting options for the audience to better meet the needs of B2B users - for example include industry type, functional area, etc.
• Bring back the navigation test type
• Add additional test types

Incentivized

• 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

Incentivized

• User interface
• Mobile support
• Consolidation of Results

Due to its simplicity and design it is really easy to navigate. You can clearly understand which sections you have completed and which are still left to be done. It is also really easy to change ordering of content etc, which I have found hasn’t been an option in other tools which means it is a really lengthy task of rewriting all of the tasks or questions to get them in the correct order that is desired.

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

I think it's very user friendly. I think it gives you a chance to get a feel for websites you may not previously have experience with nor have otherwise experienced. It's also a great way to give input and help shape functionality of business you may enjoy or have further interest in

Incentivized

Any issues that presented themselves were dealt with in a quick and efficient manner and fully rectified by the knowledgeable team over at Maze.

Incentivized

They give their best and also reply to queries immediately

Well trained Professionls

Decent but not comprehensive

Even though it takes time to set up. The work is diligent and out of the quality is great

UsabilityHub provides very fast, short responses to specific questions about a static image of a website. This is useful for checking what is most prominent on a page, what they would click on, what they see/read within the first 5 seconds of landing etc. WhatUsersDo is a broader tool, that records the screen and audio as a user navigates the website. You can set tasks and ask questions, but it much more about the user journey experience and their opinion, rather than testing a particular feature. Feedback also takes a bit longer. Hotjar is a combination of both, its a screen recording which helps you to see where users click and move to, but there is no audio or text feedback, just heatmaps/click maps for watching user behaviour.

Incentivized

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.

Incentivized

We used WhatUsersDo. However, the tool currently got bought out by a bigger company and were removing the remote research tool. We chose to use Userlytics as it stacked up well against competitors.

Incentivized

Delay to get output

• Increase in testing frequency per quarter.
• Increase in approved projects for developments.
• Few reverts per project.

Incentivized

• Easy to run quant test
• Easy to test with large number of people on production
• Easy to run unmoderated competitor studies

Incentivized

• Definitely positive, I would say about 30%.

Incentivized