Optimal vs. UserTesting

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Optimal
Score 9.0 out of 10
N/A
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
UserTesting
Score 8.3 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.N/A
Pricing
OptimalUserTesting
Editions & Modules
Starter
$2388
per year
Enterprise
Custom
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
OptimalUserTesting
Free Trial
NoYes
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
OptimalUserTesting
Considered Both Products
Optimal
Chose Optimal
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 …
Chose Optimal
Optimal seems a little more friendly in terms of setting up tests. We do use UserTesting as well, but it felt like that experience has more in-depth workflows to blast a test. Optimal Workshop feels like it is easy to quickly set up one test and then launch it immediately.
Chose Optimal
Optimal Workshop has many different research study tools beyond just surveys.
Chose Optimal
Optimal Workshop is worse than its competitors, and I only tried it because of the price. Huge mistake.
Chose Optimal
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.
UserTesting
Chose UserTesting
I have not evaluated any other platforms. Since 2013 or so, I've been a dedicated user of the UserTesting platform, so unfortunately I can't speak on any other platforms... I don't have experience using any of the competitors.
Chose UserTesting
I've created tests myself and contacts people myself.. and utilized watching people through ms teams meetings.
Chose UserTesting
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 …
Chose UserTesting
More participants in the area we are focusing on
Chose UserTesting
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 …
Chose UserTesting
The business chose the platform, but I am not too sure.
Chose UserTesting
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 …
Chose UserTesting
UserTesting has the best unmoderated interview set up and it's easy for participants to use as well.
Chose UserTesting
UserTesting is very much a usability testing tool. dscout has much more robust functionality and feels like a more complete user research tool, and I prefer the quality of the panel. However, the UserTesting panel is much larger, and works well when you have lower barriers to …
Chose UserTesting
Because Maze has more limited feature set and basic analytics.
Chose UserTesting
UserTesting is far more advanced than Userbob. It allows a lot more flexibility in the type of testing we run and specifically how we gather respondents to this.

Most tests are unmoderated, similar to Maze, which I would suggest is the most comparable in platform. I find …
Chose UserTesting
Content square is great for seeing customer insights, but UserTesting cuts straight to the point
Chose UserTesting
UserTesting is not a one-size-fits-all approach, but it excels in certain areas. Its user-friendly UI and speedy test launch make it excellent for companies that require immediate user feedback. Budget-conscious firms may find UserTesting's cost-effectiveness appealing, …
Chose UserTesting
Userlytics was evaluated before but coverage of services was less as compare to UserTesting.
Chose UserTesting
They all have different needs but we used the others to try and do what we wanted before we switched to UserTesting. we wanted to utilize as much of our audience as possible before but we noticed that people who had familiarity with our products would breeze through the testing.
Chose UserTesting
I used Lookback at a previous organization. Overall, UT is more usable for participants, and the built-in participant pool is a standout feature.
Chose UserTesting
UserTesting is better than Hotjar interviews; its tools for creating unmoderated tests and analyzing feedback are superior.
Chose UserTesting
UserTesting is easier to use, and the site's design is user-friendly. There are no glitches, and the site works without crashes or slow loading.
Chose UserTesting
This is the only comparable platform I've used.
Chose UserTesting
I prefer Maze as it is much more intuitive.
Chose UserTesting
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 …
Chose UserTesting
As we have a bigger UX team, it helps us make user research a team sport. It helps us scale and speed up learning without creating bottlenecks which might happen if we were to use smaller tools and platforms.
Chose UserTesting
In terms of overall cost and value, UserTesting stacks up well. While the platform's overall usability could be improved, and it lacks certain features that other platforms offer, we could not find a better platform for quick, reliable insights in a recent comparison.
Chose UserTesting
I've used dscout, and although I prefer UserTesting.com, I will say that dscout really excels at the diary study format. It would be great if UserTesting had a tool/tools that facilitated diary studies better.
Best Alternatives
OptimalUserTesting
Small Businesses
Smartlook
Smartlook
Score 8.8 out of 10
Smartlook
Smartlook
Score 8.8 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
Optimizely Web Experimentation
Optimizely Web Experimentation
Score 8.7 out of 10
Optimal
Optimal
Score 9.0 out of 10
Enterprises
Optimizely Web Experimentation
Optimizely Web Experimentation
Score 8.7 out of 10
Optimal
Optimal
Score 9.0 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
OptimalUserTesting
Likelihood to Recommend
9.0
(0 ratings)
8.4
(0 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
-
(0 ratings)
8.2
(0 ratings)
Usability
8.0
(0 ratings)
8.6
(0 ratings)
Availability
-
(0 ratings)
9.1
(0 ratings)
Performance
-
(0 ratings)
9.1
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
8.9
(0 ratings)
8.1
(0 ratings)
Implementation Rating
-
(0 ratings)
4.6
(0 ratings)
Configurability
-
(0 ratings)
7.3
(0 ratings)
Product Scalability
-
(0 ratings)
7.3
(0 ratings)
Vendor post-sale
-
(0 ratings)
9.1
(0 ratings)
Vendor pre-sale
-
(0 ratings)
9.1
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
OptimalUserTesting
Likelihood to Recommend
The tools are great for user researchers who have a solid foundation with IA research methods, or are willing to learn them while using the tools. However they don't magically create valid IA studies; someone with no IA research experience may struggle to use the tools and/or run studies resulting in poor quality data.
Read full review
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.
Read full review
Pros
  • Optimal Workshop's UI and UX are impeccable. It's incredibly easy to use and set up tests even for novices.
  • Optimal Workshop's test type offerings are fantastic. They have almost anything you could need within the platform.
  • Optimal Workshop's payment options are incredibly reasonable and useful whether you're doing very few tests or a lot of tests.
Read full review
  • 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.
Read full review
Cons
  • 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.
Read full review
  • Quality of participant pool - many are career testers, and many are untruthful. Since sessions are auto-scheduled if the screener is past, you often don't know until they've completed the test. Allow double screening or be more stringent in removing users from the platform.
  • Unfinished products - focus on making one product the best it can be before moving on to a new one. Unmoderated testing is still missing features (randomization of 3 or more prototypes, etc.)
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
No answers on this topic
I'm actually trying to get a license for my current job at my current company (recently moved to a new company). I gave it this rating because I am about to go to our executive to ask that we purchase it! I know that there will be value because we are forecasting a high volume of research next year
Read full review
Usability
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.
Read full review
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.
Read full review
Reliability and Availability
No answers on this topic
Never encountered any problems
Read full review
Performance
No answers on this topic
Perfectly fine. Never had any problems.
Read full review
Support Rating
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.
Read full review
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.
Read full review
Implementation Rating
No answers on this topic
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.
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
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
Read full review
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 to be prohibitively expensive at first glance. In the end, however, the deal struck to get UserTesting for the UX team proved to be sufficiently competitive for us to proceed.
Read full review
Scalability
No answers on this topic
The package we have limits the number of people who can set up tests. This prevents us from scaling the use of the platform.
Read full review
Return on Investment
  • Optimal Workshop has provided a very low-risk, quick testing ground for navigation menus. So while the full impact cannot be determined, we are happy we are using Optimal Workshop, and are gaining benefits from it.
Read full review
  • It provides critical insights that increase our subscriptions, time spent and in a commerce frame, conversion
  • It helps frame the need to pivot on products yet to launch to ensure the meet user expectations so reduces risk.
  • It is integral to highlights areas of opportunity we can captialise on
Read full review
ScreenShots

UserTesting Screenshots

Screenshot of UserTesting's several solutions for gathering rich customer experience narratives.Screenshot of Interactive Path Flows
Built on recent research in data mining, the Interactive Path Flow aggregates interaction data across multiple participant sessions to visualize the customer journey, surface unexpected behaviors, and locate key moments in the customer journey.Screenshot of Keyword Mapping
Similar keywords are automatically grouped based on overall sentiment (positive, negative, or neutral) to identify themes. Highlight reels associated with each keyword are grouped together, to discover the why behind each sentiment.Screenshot of Video capture and live streaming
Digital and real-world customer experiences are recorded on desktop and mobile devices or live streamed for in-platform viewing.Screenshot of Audience targeting
Audiences are specified by screening contributors from UserTesting’s global network of contributors or connecting to any preferred network.