Lyssna (formerly UsabilityHub) is a user research platform used to test digital products with real users and gain insights into their audience. Its tools and features help Lyssna to optimize users' designs and create more engaging user-friendly experiences. Lyssna is a research platform, offering a broad range of testing features including: Five Second Testing - Used to quickly test the effectiveness of landing pages, messaging and designs by showing users a…
$0
3 seats included
Optimizely Web Experimentation
Score 8.7 out of 10
N/A
Whether launching a first test or scaling a sophisticated experimentation program, Optimizely Web Experimentation aims to deliver the insights needed to craft high-performing digital experiences that drive engagement, increase conversions, and accelerate growth.
N/A
Pricing
Lyssna
Optimizely Web Experimentation
Editions & Modules
Free
$0
3 seats included
Growth
$199
per month 5 seats included
Enterprise
Contact Sales
custom seats
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Lyssna
Optimizely Web Experimentation
Free Trial
Yes
Yes
Free/Freemium Version
Yes
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
Optional
Additional Details
Discount available for annual plan. Panel responses are priced seperately.
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Lyssna
Optimizely Web Experimentation
Considered Both Products
Lyssna
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose Lyssna
Lyssna is certainly the least expensive, most basic and easy to use out of the range of usability tools I have used in the past. Depending on your maturity as a business and the projects that you are doing, this can be a great starting point before scaling up.
Maze has a more comprehensive reporting presentation compared to Usabilityhub. Maze's interface is clean and modern but it lacks a simple intuitive testing set found in UsabilityHub. The terminology of a maze is slightly confusing, flow tests are integrated with only Figma, Xd, …
I've not found any other tools as good as UsabilityHub. I've experienced some tools that have some similar functionalities, but they don't let you add multiple formats of questions in one test (as far as I'm aware.)
Like UsabilityHub, VWO is a testing platform but it tests against a site's users, not a set pool of testers. There is more flexibility for testing with VWO as you could use a WYSIWIG/edit HTML/CSS to make changes to a live site vs. UsabilityHub where'd you have to upload image …
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 …
Optmizely is much more performant product. We have witnessed less issues with page performance on Optimizely and have no issues with flickering. We had these issues with Maxymiser.
Best-in-Class Experiment Design compared to platforms like VWO and Convert. Optimizely offers a more polished and intuitive UI for setting up experiments. It feels purpose-built with lots of concurrent tests. Features like traffic allocation, audience targeting, and variation …
The ability to do A/B testing in Optimizely along with the associated statistical modelling and audience segmentation means it is a much better solution than using something like Google Analytics were a lot more effort is required to identify and isolate the specific data you …
I do not have any issues with AB Tasty. They are great. We went with Optimizely because they have several other products that will work together with our business model. Optimizely has grown and it now offers many other products that work with experimentation like CMS, CMP, ODP …
Optimizely is highly intuitive, allowing marketers or non-technical folks to run experiments without complicated coding. It also allows for various types of experimentation, including A/B tests, multivariate tests, and personalization. This capability will enable teams to run …
None of them have a best in class stats engine and live within an ecosystem of marketing technology products the way that Optimizely does, so the scalability of using any one of those tools is limited as compared to using Optimizely Web Experimentation.
It's a lot more, well, site stacked, it's way better than that. Adobe Target. I think the UI is easier to use on Optimizely. The one thing that I would say comparatively is our analytics talking to each other. Obviously Adobe, we use Adobe Analytics and Adobe Target, so they …
Optimizely is more user-friendly and cost-effective, ideal for experimentation-focused teams, while Adobe Target excels in advanced personalization and seamless integration within the Adobe ecosystem, making it better suited for large enterprises.
Optimizely Web Experimentation was more robust and able to handle the broad array of sites we run than VWO. It has been a great platform to easily add additional sites onto, but still providing a universal overview of all of them, making management a simple task.
we used Optimizely Web Experimentation then AB Tasty but came back to Optimizley because of its robust stat sig and features as well as all of the products we will be able to work in synchronization.
I think it's well suited to any scenario where something requires feedback, whether it's exploratory feedback of current designs or validation that a new design solves a problem & additional feedback can be gathered to make it even better. I'd recommend UsabilityHub to anybody who isn't 100% sure on a design, and if they are, they need to use it to confirm that certainty.
I think it can serve the whole spectrum of experiences from people who are just getting used to web experimentation. It's really easy to pick up and use. If you're more experienced then it works well because it just gets out of the way and lets you really focus on the experimentation side of things. So yeah, strongly recommend. I think it is well suited both to small businesses and large enterprises as well. I think it's got a really low barrier to entry. It's very easy to integrate on your website and get results quickly. Likewise, if you are a big business, it's incrementally adoptable, so you can start out with one component of optimizing and you can build there and start to build in things like data CMS to augment experimentation as well. So it's got a really strong a pathway to grow your MarTech platform if you're a small company or a big company.
The Platform contains drag-and-drop editor options for creating variations, which ease the A/B tests process, as it does not require any coding or development resources.
Establishing it is so simple that even a non-technical person can do it perfectly.
It provides real-time results and analytics with robust dashboard access through which you can quickly analyze how different variations perform. With this, your team can easily make data-driven decisions Fastly.
The results view is dense and difficult to package easily for leadership, and when filtering by segment it's hard to read comparative outcomes without clearing or swapping filters
The organization of experiments and statuses is a cluttered list and the search is limited in use - would love to see that improve with time
There are so many other MarTech products out there, would love to see more dedicated integrations so we don't have to invest in something like Zapier or Tray to build hacky automations
Because it's an incredible and essential tool for my line of work as a conversion optimization specialist. Really couldn't do my job nearly as effectively without it. It's paid for itself many times over and I feel like I'm only beginning to unlock the tools potential.
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.
Optimizely Web Experimentation's visual editor is handy for non-technical or quick iterative testing. When it comes to content changes it's as easy as going into wordpress, clicking around, and then seeing your changes live--what you see is what you get. The preview and approval process for sharing built experiments is also handy for sharing experiments across teams for QA purposes or otherwise.
I would rate Optimizely Web Experimentation's availability as a 10 out of 10. The software is reliable and does not experience any application errors or unplanned outages. Additionally, the customer service and technical support teams are always available to help with any issues or questions.
I would rate Optimizely Web Experimentation's performance as a 9 out of 10. Pages load quickly, reports are complete in a reasonable time frame, and the software does not slow down any other software or systems that it integrates with. Additionally, the customer service and technical support teams are always available to help with any issues or questions.
They always are quick to respond, and are so friendly and helpful. They always answer the phone right away. And [they are] always willing to not only help you with your problem, but if you need ideas they have suggestions as well.
The tool itself is not very difficult to use so training was not very useful in my opinion. It did not also account for success events more complex than a click (which my company being ecommerce is looking to examine more than a mere click).
The implementation through the tag management system took a bit of trial and error at first, mostly due to the asynchronous nature of the TMS. We had to manipulate the implementation to assure that the Optimizely code was written to the page at the right time to allow the experiment content load in the browser without showing any of the original content first. We also needed to make some adjustments to the TMS code to get the integration with Site Catalyst timed appropriately.
Maze has a more comprehensive reporting presentation compared to Usabilityhub. Maze's interface is clean and modern but it lacks a simple intuitive testing set found in UsabilityHub. The terminology of a Maze is slightly confusing, flow tests are integrated with only Figma, Xd, Invision, Sketch, and Marvel prototypes. The final test interface shown to users is confusing and could have been simpler like UsabilityHub.
The ability to do A/B testing in Optimizely along with the associated statistical modelling and audience segmentation means it is a much better solution than using something like Google Analytics were a lot more effort is required to identify and isolate the specific data you need to confidently make changes
It's incredibly flexible and adapts well to organizations of all sizes, whether you’re running a single site or managing multiple departments and platforms. The ability to deploy experiments seamlessly across different environments is a huge plus, especially for growing businesses. While it’s highly scalable, the last point would depend on the right team leveraging its full potential.