Maze vs. Optimal Workshop

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

Optimal Workshop is great for UX testing for those with a budget to do so. This may be a little on the expensive side for smaller businesses, but definitely not anything crazy expensive. The insights that you get out of these tests are invaluable and can be the difference between launching a site and succeeding/failing.

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.

• The user interface is quite user friendly
• Variety of tests
• Access and variety of help on how to run tests, as well as educational information on which tests to run for your use case

Incentivized

• Change/Audit log to understand who is doing what and when
• Some simpler templates for simpler situations
• Additional means to take data out into 3rd party products for advanced analytics

Incentivized

• The recruitment panelists are not professional, nor do they take the tasks seriously. You are going to get a lot of bad data.
• They are HQ'd outside the US and must have a small team because the customer service is the absolute WORST I've experienced in their industry.
• They pride themselves on documentation, but when they fail to document something they blame the customer for the mistake.
• There are way too many limitations with the tool after you launch, limited integrations, and poor survey questionnaire options. The tool itself is far too basic for most sites, especially B2B.

Excellent and easy platform to use. Easy to onboard new members of the team. Easy to set up tests and follow number of participants performing the test. Easy to plug into other platforms to record participants. Excellent reporting. Easy to share reports with stakeholders. Easy to recruit through platform, however the quality of participants can be better.

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

The support has been good. No complaints. I have not needed to contact support more than 1-2 times when I was first getting set up, because the tools work well and are pretty straight forward. They do have good documentation

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

For the price as it is very convenient for first-time beginners, its intuitiveness both for the one who is designing the activities and for those who have to interact with them. The fact that it collects and gathers the data into insights of the overall responses collected by all users.

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

• Optimal Workshop has had a positive impact on investigating information architecture on several websites.
• Optimal Workshop has helped investigated the labeling on several websites.
• Optimal Workshop has also support in the investigation of UX in navigations.

Incentivized