Lyssna vs. UserTesting

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.

Incentivized

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.

Incentivized

• Very fast - you can have responses in minutes.
• Very easy and straightforward to use. The interface is clear and intuitive.
• They offer suggestions for questions that are effective, which is very helpful for a first time user.

Incentivized

• Product Manager who follows up on your UserTesting usage and gives advice/support when you need it.
• UserTesting University is a great platform to learn how to use UT and general information about research.
• UserTesting can find participants quickly, so you won't need to wait long before you can start the analysis.

Incentivized

• More targeted screening
• A portal of all opportunities rather than email invites

Incentivized

• 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.)

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

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

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.

Incentivized

Never encountered any problems

Incentivized

Perfectly fine. Never had any problems.

Incentivized

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.

Incentivized

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.

Incentivized

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.

Incentivized

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.

Incentivized

The package we have limits the number of people who can set up tests. This prevents us from scaling the use of the platform.

Incentivized

• Positive - It would give us responses significantly faster than testing out a concept on a live site
• Positive - It allowed us to reach a wider audience for our tests (beyond our website traffic)
• Positive - The quick turnaround time and quality of feedback encouraged other internal units to want to test more as they saw the return quickly.

Incentivized

• It provides critical insights that increase our subscriptions, time spent and in a commerce frame, conversion
• It helps frame the need to pivot on products yet to launch to ensure the meet user expectations so reduces risk.
• It is integral to highlights areas of opportunity we can captialise on

Incentivized