Lyssna vs. Optimal Workshop

UsabilityHub is well suited for remote unmoderated testing. Responses are captured very quickly and live updates allow the user to keep track of how the test is performing. The types of testing that make the most sense to use on UsabilityHub are preference test, first click test, navigational, and design surveys. It is less appropriate for one-on-one testing and lengthy questionnaires.

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

• Rapid user feedback
• Demographic targeting
• Well presented results
• Easy to use
• Relatively inexpensive

Incentivized

• 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

• Add additional demographic sorting options for the audience to better meet the needs of B2B users - for example include industry type, functional area, etc.
• Bring back the navigation test type
• Add additional test types

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

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

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 broader tool, that records the screen and audio as a user navigates the website. You can set tasks and ask questions, but it much more about the user journey experience and their opinion, rather than testing a particular feature. Feedback also takes a bit longer. Hotjar is a combination of both, its a screen recording which helps you to see where users click and move to, but there is no audio or text feedback, just heatmaps/click maps for watching user behaviour.

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

• Increase in testing frequency per quarter.
• Increase in approved projects for developments.
• Few reverts per project.

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