Optimizely Web Experimentation vs. UserTesting

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Optimizely Web Experimentation
Score 8.7 out of 10
N/A
Whether launching a first test or scaling a sophisticated experimentation program, Optimizely Web Experimentation aims to deliver the insights needed to craft high-performing digital experiences that drive engagement, increase conversions, and accelerate growth.N/A
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
Optimizely Web ExperimentationUserTesting
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Optimizely Web ExperimentationUserTesting
Free Trial
YesYes
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeOptionalNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Optimizely Web ExperimentationUserTesting
Considered Both Products
Optimizely Web Experimentation
Chose Optimizely Web Experimentation
Atlassian Jira
Chose Optimizely Web Experimentation
We have just used experimentation just now, so we don't have any other tools or products.
Chose Optimizely Web Experimentation
I'm new to Experimentations. This is the only product that I've used.
Chose Optimizely Web Experimentation
Optmizely is much more performant product. We have witnessed less issues with page performance on Optimizely and have no issues with flickering. We had these issues with Maxymiser.
Chose Optimizely Web Experimentation
Contentsquare and Sitecore Digital Experience Platform
Chose Optimizely Web Experimentation
Best-in-Class Experiment Design compared to platforms like VWO and Convert. Optimizely offers a more polished and intuitive UI for setting up experiments. It feels purpose-built with lots of concurrent tests. Features like traffic allocation, audience targeting, and variation …
Chose Optimizely Web Experimentation
The ability to do A/B testing in Optimizely along with the associated statistical modelling and audience segmentation means it is a much better solution than using something like Google Analytics were a lot more effort is required to identify and isolate the specific data you …
Chose Optimizely Web Experimentation
I do not have any issues with AB Tasty. They are great. We went with Optimizely because they have several other products that will work together with our business model. Optimizely has grown and it now offers many other products that work with experimentation like CMS, CMP, ODP …
Chose Optimizely Web Experimentation
Google Optimize and Hotjar
Chose Optimizely Web Experimentation
Optimizely is highly intuitive, allowing marketers or non-technical folks to run experiments without complicated coding. It also allows for various types of experimentation, including A/B tests, multivariate tests, and personalization. This capability will enable teams to run …
Chose Optimizely Web Experimentation
Better UI, more integrated with our enterprise
Chose Optimizely Web Experimentation
This is a platform that was already implemented when I started with my current company.
Chose Optimizely Web Experimentation
The feature set and ecosystem for Optimizely seemed much more robust and scalable.
Chose Optimizely Web Experimentation
None of them have a best in class stats engine and live within an ecosystem of marketing technology products the way that Optimizely does, so the scalability of using any one of those tools is limited as compared to using Optimizely Web Experimentation.
Chose Optimizely Web Experimentation
It's a lot more, well, site stacked, it's way better than that. Adobe Target. I think the UI is easier to use on Optimizely. The one thing that I would say comparatively is our analytics talking to each other. Obviously Adobe, we use Adobe Analytics and Adobe Target, so they …
Chose Optimizely Web Experimentation
Optimizely is more user-friendly and cost-effective, ideal for experimentation-focused teams, while Adobe Target excels in advanced personalization and seamless integration within the Adobe ecosystem, making it better suited for large enterprises.
Chose Optimizely Web Experimentation
We analyzed a few competitors and optimizely had the most robust feature set and scalability
Chose Optimizely Web Experimentation
I feel Optimizely Web Experimentation stacked up well against Split
Chose Optimizely Web Experimentation
We haven't used other Optimizely products apart from Web Experimentation.
Chose Optimizely Web Experimentation
Optimizely Web Experimentation was more robust and able to handle the broad array of sites we run than VWO. It has been a great platform to easily add additional sites onto, but still providing a universal overview of all of them, making management a simple task.
Chose Optimizely Web Experimentation
we used Optimizely Web Experimentation then AB Tasty but came back to Optimizley because of its robust stat sig and features as well as all of the products we will be able to work in synchronization.
Chose Optimizely Web Experimentation
We use both, it just depends on the use case. I personally prefer feature experimentation but I see why both are useful.
Chose Optimizely Web Experimentation
Optimizely Web Experimentation has more robust product for experimentation specialists than VWO
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.
Features
Optimizely Web ExperimentationUserTesting
Testing and Experimentation
Comparison of Testing and Experimentation features of Product A and Product B
Optimizely Web Experimentation
8.0
Ratings
5% below category average
UserTesting
-
Ratings
a/b experiment testing9.00 Ratings00 Ratings
Split URL testing8.50 Ratings00 Ratings
Multivariate testing8.40 Ratings00 Ratings
Multi-page/funnel testing7.90 Ratings00 Ratings
Cross-browser testing8.10 Ratings00 Ratings
Mobile app testing8.00 Ratings00 Ratings
Test significance8.40 Ratings00 Ratings
Visual / WYSIWYG editor8.10 Ratings00 Ratings
Advanced code editor8.00 Ratings00 Ratings
Page surveys6.20 Ratings00 Ratings
Visitor recordings8.40 Ratings00 Ratings
Preview mode7.60 Ratings00 Ratings
Test duration calculator7.90 Ratings00 Ratings
Experiment scheduler8.20 Ratings00 Ratings
Experiment workflow and approval7.80 Ratings00 Ratings
Dynamic experiment activation7.50 Ratings00 Ratings
Client-side tests7.80 Ratings00 Ratings
Server-side tests7.20 Ratings00 Ratings
Mutually exclusive tests8.10 Ratings00 Ratings
Audience Segmentation & Targeting
Comparison of Audience Segmentation & Targeting features of Product A and Product B
Optimizely Web Experimentation
8.2
Ratings
7% below category average
UserTesting
-
Ratings
Standard visitor segmentation8.40 Ratings00 Ratings
Behavioral visitor segmentation7.60 Ratings00 Ratings
Traffic allocation control9.10 Ratings00 Ratings
Website personalization7.80 Ratings00 Ratings
Results and Analysis
Comparison of Results and Analysis features of Product A and Product B
Optimizely Web Experimentation
8.3
Ratings
4% below category average
UserTesting
-
Ratings
Heatmap tool9.30 Ratings00 Ratings
Click analytics8.80 Ratings00 Ratings
Scroll maps8.50 Ratings00 Ratings
Form fill analysis8.00 Ratings00 Ratings
Conversion tracking8.70 Ratings00 Ratings
Goal tracking8.20 Ratings00 Ratings
Test reporting7.90 Ratings00 Ratings
Results segmentation7.70 Ratings00 Ratings
CSV export7.90 Ratings00 Ratings
Experiments results dashboard8.00 Ratings00 Ratings
Best Alternatives
Optimizely Web ExperimentationUserTesting
Small Businesses
Convert Experiences
Convert Experiences
Score 9.9 out of 10
Smartlook
Smartlook
Score 8.8 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
Dynamic Yield
Dynamic Yield
Score 9.0 out of 10
Optimal
Optimal
Score 9.0 out of 10
Enterprises
Dynamic Yield
Dynamic Yield
Score 9.0 out of 10
Optimal
Optimal
Score 9.0 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
Optimizely Web ExperimentationUserTesting
Likelihood to Recommend
8.7
(0 ratings)
8.4
(0 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
9.5
(0 ratings)
8.1
(0 ratings)
Usability
10.0
(0 ratings)
8.6
(0 ratings)
Availability
10.0
(0 ratings)
9.1
(0 ratings)
Performance
7.3
(0 ratings)
9.1
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
10.0
(0 ratings)
8.1
(0 ratings)
Online Training
3.0
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Implementation Rating
8.0
(0 ratings)
4.6
(0 ratings)
Configurability
6.0
(0 ratings)
7.3
(0 ratings)
Product Scalability
8.0
(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
Optimizely Web ExperimentationUserTesting
Likelihood to Recommend
I think it can serve the whole spectrum of experiences from people who are just getting used to web experimentation. It's really easy to pick up and use. If you're more experienced then it works well because it just gets out of the way and lets you really focus on the experimentation side of things. So yeah, strongly recommend. I think it is well suited both to small businesses and large enterprises as well. I think it's got a really low barrier to entry. It's very easy to integrate on your website and get results quickly. Likewise, if you are a big business, it's incrementally adoptable, so you can start out with one component of optimizing and you can build there and start to build in things like data CMS to augment experimentation as well. So it's got a really strong a pathway to grow your MarTech platform if you're a small company or a big company.
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
  • The Platform contains drag-and-drop editor options for creating variations, which ease the A/B tests process, as it does not require any coding or development resources.
  • Establishing it is so simple that even a non-technical person can do it perfectly.
  • It provides real-time results and analytics with robust dashboard access through which you can quickly analyze how different variations perform. With this, your team can easily make data-driven decisions Fastly.
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 results view is dense and difficult to package easily for leadership, and when filtering by segment it's hard to read comparative outcomes without clearing or swapping filters
  • The organization of experiments and statuses is a cluttered list and the search is limited in use - would love to see that improve with time
  • There are so many other MarTech products out there, would love to see more dedicated integrations so we don't have to invest in something like Zapier or Tray to build hacky automations
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
Because it's an incredible and essential tool for my line of work as a conversion optimization specialist. Really couldn't do my job nearly as effectively without it. It's paid for itself many times over and I feel like I'm only beginning to unlock the tools potential.
Read full review
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
Optimizely Web Experimentation's visual editor is handy for non-technical or quick iterative testing. When it comes to content changes it's as easy as going into wordpress, clicking around, and then seeing your changes live--what you see is what you get. The preview and approval process for sharing built experiments is also handy for sharing experiments across teams for QA purposes or otherwise.
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
I would rate Optimizely Web Experimentation's availability as a 10 out of 10. The software is reliable and does not experience any application errors or unplanned outages. Additionally, the customer service and technical support teams are always available to help with any issues or questions.
Read full review
Never encountered any problems
Read full review
Performance
I would rate Optimizely Web Experimentation's performance as a 9 out of 10. Pages load quickly, reports are complete in a reasonable time frame, and the software does not slow down any other software or systems that it integrates with. Additionally, the customer service and technical support teams are always available to help with any issues or questions.
Read full review
Perfectly fine. Never had any problems.
Read full review
Support Rating
They always are quick to respond, and are so friendly and helpful. They always answer the phone right away. And [they are] always willing to not only help you with your problem, but if you need ideas they have suggestions as well.
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
Online Training
The tool itself is not very difficult to use so training was not very useful in my opinion. It did not also account for success events more complex than a click (which my company being ecommerce is looking to examine more than a mere click).
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Implementation Rating
The implementation through the tag management system took a bit of trial and error at first, mostly due to the asynchronous nature of the TMS. We had to manipulate the implementation to assure that the Optimizely code was written to the page at the right time to allow the experiment content load in the browser without showing any of the original content first. We also needed to make some adjustments to the TMS code to get the integration with Site Catalyst timed appropriately.
Read full review
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
The ability to do A/B testing in Optimizely along with the associated statistical modelling and audience segmentation means it is a much better solution than using something like Google Analytics were a lot more effort is required to identify and isolate the specific data you need to confidently make changes
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
It's incredibly flexible and adapts well to organizations of all sizes, whether you’re running a single site or managing multiple departments and platforms. The ability to deploy experiments seamlessly across different environments is a huge plus, especially for growing businesses. While it’s highly scalable, the last point would depend on the right team leveraging its full potential.
Read full review
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
  • we saved money by not implementing certain copy/design
  • we learned that customers from different states react different to a variation
  • we are slowly learning where conversion happens and where to fix the frictions
  • Testing shorter vs longer journeys increased funnel conversion in some states - we avoided implementing this nationwide
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

Optimizely Web Experimentation Screenshots

Screenshot of AI-Powered Experimentation with Opal:

- Instant Test Ideas: Generates high-quality A/B test ideas based on any goals and audience insights.
- Smarter Experimentation: The AI can suggest impactful variations, reducing guesswork and increasing test velocity.
- More Than Just Ideas: From hypothesis generation to analyzing results, Opal helps optimize every stage of the experimentation process.Screenshot of the new Visual Editor with an AI Variation Development Agent

Create simple or advanced website changes fast without writing a line of code with our AI Development Agent.

Use natural language to build out your ideas and apply brand styles to your experiments instantly.Screenshot of Advanced Audience Targeting:

- Delivers personalized experiences by targeting users based on behaviors, attributes, and real-time conditions.
- Defines precise audience segments using first-party data, geolocation, and device type.
- Can test and optimize for different audience groups to maximize impact and engagement.Screenshot of Variation Template

Library of experience templates that you can access right within the Visual Editor. Customize these templates or create your own to easily reuse throughout your experimentation program.

- Offers pre-built templates for common test setups.
- Standardized variations and maintains brand integrity with reusable templates.
- Templates can be customized visually or tweak them with code for full flexibility.Screenshot of Web Experimentation Results Page:

- Data visualizations help interpret experiment performance.
- Displays which variations are winning with built-in statistical significance calculations.
- Results can be filtered by audience segments, events, and conversions to uncover key trends.Screenshot of the custom code editor for JavaScript & CSS changes, used to build complex tests.

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.