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

UserTesting is at its best when conducting a range of unmoderated user research tasks with UT's own user panel. UserTesting is less useful when conducting research with our own users, as the UT interface isn't readily understood by them for unmoderated tests, and the types of tests available in moderated research are rather limited.

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

• 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

• Quality of participants- its clear some fake their IP addresses and are not in the country you have screened for
• The AI analytics are not the most functional from what I have seen, stick to what you're good at?
• I find the scheduling for live sessions clunky to use, the calendar interface is very glitchy

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Content is key to the sign up journey and UserTesting helps me improve that.
• UserTesting has helped me improve the Cashier on our site, making it easier for users to deposit money.
• UserTesting is helping me iterate all our content decisions, helping us improve the UX across all platforms.

Incentivized