Usabilla was a web and app survey tool, developed by the Amsterdam company of the same name, and acquired by SurveyMonkey in March of 2019. The product is no longer available.
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.
I have Hotjar, Sprig, and Usabilla in my workplace. Usabilla unfortunately has the most limited feature set of the 3 options. The difficulty of administering a Usabilla survey on mobile is a big blocker for my projects. Sprig and Hotjar both allow mobile and allow video …
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.
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 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 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 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 …
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 …
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, …
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.
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 …
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.
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.
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.
If we could select 0/10 we would... We would not recommend anyone using this product as it excludes a very important user group, disabled users. If you use this product you will be failing ADA and WCAG 2.1 (EU Directive for public sector websites and mobile apps). In my opinion, you will be vulnerable to lawsuits.
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.
It doesn't gather users from all user groups, it's exclusive to non-disabled users - users with disabilities using assistive technology are not able to access or use the platform
There are extensive colour contrast issues with the platform, making it difficult to use by users with low vision
Usabilla is not accessible to keyboard users (as well as users on other assistive technology) - when the modal is expanded, the background is still focusable
The touch target sizes of the links and buttons are not accessible - it's very difficult to close out of the modal when on mobile, or if a user had a mobility disability and was using a mouse
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.)
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
The interface to configure the questionary is quite easy to use. It helps to give autonomy to marketing teams. Once the initial setup is made (integrating a basic javascript code on your website), you can easily deploy any questionary on any page of your website. Usabilla is a very flexible tool overall.
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.
I haven't contacted support yet to solve a particular issue. I do have an account manager at Usabilla that I talk to in order to introduce the software to my team but this is just to run over the basic functionality in a live demo setting. The ability to talk to a real person over video call is a benefit though.
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.
I have Hotjar, Sprig, and Usabilla in my workplace. Usabilla unfortunately has the most limited feature set of the 3 options. The difficulty of administering a Usabilla survey on mobile is a big blocker for my projects. Sprig and Hotjar both allow mobile and allow video recordings (either of a user's screen or a user's webcam for impromptu interviews).
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.
The positive impact of Usabilla has been being able to measure and respond quickly to our customers' feedback so that we can resolve issues quicker or make enhancements faster.
We have also been able to manage and track our NPS scores and correlate these scores to our overall business performance to make sure that our customers' views of our products and processes and in line with our internal understanding and success of the business.
Additionally, the Usabilla team has been willing to provide us with training and ideas on how to use the tool better which has helped our team think more strategically and be more connected to the experiences our customers are having on our web properties.