Optimal Workshop, a company in New Zealand, offers their suite of user research tools on a subscription basis, including the Treejack information architecture tool, OptimalSort card sorting test, Chalkmark first-click testing, and other tools.
$2,388
per year
Userlytics
Score 6.2 out of 10
N/A
Userlytics headquartered in San Francisco provides their suite of usablity testing tools for UI or website developers (or deliverers of similar digital assets) on a pay-as-you-go / per participant basis, or a subscription basis.
$3,450
per year
UserTesting
Score 8.2 out of 10
N/A
UserTesting helps UX researchers, designers, product teams, and marketers gather actionable insights through research, testing, and feedback. With a network of real people ready to share their perspectives, UserTesting enables organizations to make customer-first decisions at scale.
Optimal Workshop was the best tool that provided just what we needed and not anything more. The price point was also perfect for us as it provided room to try it out and then jump into a bigger package.
Userlytics can be a good alternate in terms of price point and has a better integration of apps like invision which helps. Mobile recording needs to be improved. Nowadays, competitors are way better in terms of functionality comparision.
UserTesting
Verified User
Manager
Chose UserTesting
Userlytics is probably the best alternative to UserTesting. It has a large panel, a similar tool for creating tests, [but] their pricing model is much more favorable for our company. They don't charge per seat license, but only per test that you conduct. That would allow my …
UserTesting has a better panel that is larger, more far reaching, and faster. UserZoom's GO platform has a better UI and a far better pricing structure, but their panel is smaller and studies take longer to fill. UserZoom has a poor panel for our needs. It is ok for general …
We use both UserTesting and Userlytics in conjunction with each other. Userlytics we find to be stronger with 1-2-1 moderated study set up due to it being really simple and intuitive for both the researcher and the participant to use. Userlytics also utilises AI analysis of …
UserTesting is probably the most polished with the largest tester pool, fastest turnaround, and great tools for both moderated and unmoderated tests. Userlytics is a solid alternative, especially for the budget-conscious. It supports usability testing on lots of devices, and …
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 …
UserTesting's platform is the most comprehensive. While it may not have the best analytics features, survey features, recruitment features, etc, it has everything you need to run evaluative and generative research.
User Testing provided me with several research methodologies especially when it comes to qualitative data about users. It is easy to use and required less learning curve User Testing offers a high quality panel, it is easy to get the required number of participants for my …
I have no used any other product similar to UserTesting. I am aware of User Interviews but do not think it has the audience/user reach like user testing does. I have used a variety of survey programs like SurveyMonkey and Typeform and have used them in conjunction with …
UserTesting is by far superior to other competitors. The amount of features and non-limitations is much better than what the competitors have. It's also much more pleasing to look at. Perhaps it's because it is well organized in comparison. It still have some annoying quirks, …
We have evaluated other tools including Validately, Loop11, LookBack, UserZoom. Some have more features and capabilities, but UserTesting seems to have the best user panel. It is also hard to switch from a tool, as you lose all the data that lives within the tool. For now we …
We also explored UserZoom but our team found it much more difficult to use. It was not intuitive at all and we had to have a lot of help and support from their team. Additionally, UserZoom was about five times more expensive than UserTesting.
All the tools we had evaluated before purchasing had similar features but the one thing that set UserTesting apart from the rest was the size and reach of their user base. We needed to reach global audiences and at the time of our choice, only UserTesting was able to reach a …
I have not personally used the competing products for UX research, but in my initial review of our options, I found UserTesting to have the best balance of platform and pricing.
Verified User
Analyst
Chose UserTesting
UserTesting has a better user base and quicker responses.
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.
Userlytics would be appropriate to use if you were investigating UX on your website, or wanted to identify any pain points which could be causing lower conversion rates. Not only will it be a way to gain direct user feedback, but it enhances your visual ability to see how a user progresses through your website. It is well suited if you have less time to conduct moderated user research at a facility or a client doesn't quite have the budget for that. It may be less appropriate if a client wants a bigger project with larger budgets and more time. In this case, moderated, face-to-face research may be more appropriate.
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.
Tree Testing - it is a very simple and easy to use system, that provides the data needed from a tree test
Card sorting - provides a system for users to participate in navigation menu layouts. We looked into several options, but this seemed very intuitive for users.
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.
Sometimes there are restrictions around types of research that can be used for moderated user-testing with our own users.
For tests on relatively small areas of a website or app, the AI analysis seems rather overblown, like it's trying too hard to come up with something insightful when the test is actually about something quite small (e.g. structure of a mobile app menu).
It's difficult to invite our own users to unmoderated user-testing because they wouldn't know how the UserTesting interface works - this is particularly an issue for mobile research.
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.
I would rate Optimal Workshop's overall usability 9 out of 10 due to several key factors. Firstly, the platform has a user-friendly interface makes navigation straightforward, even for first-time users. The tools and features are well-organized, ensuring users can quickly find what they need without unnecessary complexity. Secondly, the platform is highly intuitive, meaning users can easily understand how to perform tasks without extensive guidance. This is supported by clear and concise instructions throughout the application, reducing the learning curve significantly.
Additionally, the learnability of Optimal Workshop is exceptional. New users can become proficient in a short amount of time, thanks to its well-thought-out design and helpful onboarding materials. Even more advanced features are presented in a way that feels approachable and manageable. Finally, the platform supports a seamless workflow, allowing users to focus on their research or tasks rather than struggling with the software. These qualities collectively make Optimal Workshop a reliable and efficient tool for many projects, justifying its high usability rating.
I think it's very user friendly. I think it gives you a chance to get a feel for websites you may not previously have experience with nor have otherwise experienced. It's also a great way to give input and help shape functionality of business you may enjoy or have further interest in
It's very good, I have used other tools in the past and this is by far the most intuitive and user friendly. Testament to this is the ease with which other non researchers who have been onboarded to the tool with our additional seat have found it easy to use
We’ve never had to use much of their support services since the platform is very easy to use, we have however needed to transfer ownership between team members due to people leaving or other circumstances. Under those situations, the support offered to us has been been very quick and efficient and we never had to nudge them much to get the job done.
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.
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.
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.
We used WhatUsersDo. However, the tool currently got bought out by a bigger company and were removing the remote research tool. We chose to use Userlytics as it stacked up well against competitors.
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