Maze vs. UserTesting

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

Testing Figma prototypes, websites, mobile apps works well. Testing remotely or in person works well. If the product is not completely prototyped or give extensive instruction, then the user can get stuck and abandon the test. When in person, it is easy to fix the problem, however if a test is remotely conducted, then when something goes wrong it might crash the entire test and a new test is then needed.

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.

• 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

• 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

• A centralized platform to recommend products and use cases would be handy so that users can suggest what they could use more of.
• Integration with newer payment methods and gift card services could expand the user base.
• Some products are business-critical and thus require sophisticated testing. This service could be added.

Incentivized

I'm very happy with my experience of the product and the level of service and learning resources they provide. If the service becomes more expensive than it currently is then we might not be able to justify additional cost - but this is theoretical. I would recommend UserTesting and would ideally renew our contract.

Incentivized

Initially, I found the platform daunting, having never used a comparable site. However, I attended a series of workshops hosted by the UserTesting team, and thanks to their expert approach, I picked it up very quickly—so much so that I can now confidently teach my colleagues how to use the platform effectively.

Incentivized

Never encountered any problems

Incentivized

Perfectly fine. Never had any problems.

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 regular CSR check ins are appreciated. They want to help facilitate us using the product to its fullest capacity. We've had regular trainings and office hours that help our team use the product better. Power sessions are also always appreciated, even just to pulse check a test plan or a panel criteria. They're always available and very helpful.

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

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

The quality of the participants: they usually have good feedback and act like "professional" users. Which is good when we want a few insights in a short amount of time. Also, the interface is good. I miss having more features, like a good transcription tool like we have in Condens

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

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

Incentivized

• Increase in conversion rate of checkout completion following a redesign influenced by UserTesting through design iterations
• Decrease in customer complaints regarding the checkout (-83%) following its redesign
• Faster time to completion for AB Testing programme, and higher ROI as a result as tests had a higher chance of winning

Incentivized