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 8.1 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.
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 …
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, …
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.
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.
Well suited to its original purpose- usability testing and interviews. This can be performed at pace, given the large audience (although our brands are very well known so this should not be a barrier) and there is a decent level of task customisation when conducting unmoderated testing. Its less appropriate for survey where you are looking to capture genuine intent/behaviour, even with screeners the data skews more positively than onsite survey, makes me question the quality of survey respondents.
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 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 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 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 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.
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