Lyssna vs. Usersnap

UsabilityHub is well suited for remote unmoderated testing. Responses are captured very quickly and live updates allow the user to keep track of how the test is performing. The types of testing that make the most sense to use on UsabilityHub are preference test, first click test, navigational, and design surveys. It is less appropriate for one-on-one testing and lengthy questionnaires.

Incentivized

Definitely a great tool that is way better than just recording web QA feedback in a Google Doc or via email. Everything goes straight into a queue and it is easy to tag what you are talking about with the tool. Leaves less room for misinterpretation and keeps a record of all feedback so nothing gets missed. Filtering within the feedback queue and search functionality to avoid duplicates would be helpful.

Incentivized

• Rapid user feedback
• Demographic targeting
• Well presented results
• Easy to use
• Relatively inexpensive

Incentivized

• Organize customer feedback.
• Provide an easy to use, feature-rich widget that allows users to highlight, comment and even draw on a screenshot of your application.
• Screenshots that are sent to you include meta-data like the browser user agent, browser console data, screen resolution, etc.

Incentivized

• Add additional demographic sorting options for the audience to better meet the needs of B2B users - for example include industry type, functional area, etc.
• Bring back the navigation test type
• Add additional test types

Incentivized

• When you go into the list of Usersnap feedback you have submitted, there isn't search functionality or filtering so that you can see the feedback of a certain type at a time, or see if you submitted that feedback already.

Incentivized

I am unsure how to rate the support of Usersnap as I did not contact support yet. The tool works well as is. The agency we work with that used the tool didn't need to contact Usersnap support as well. I'm sure the user support on the tool is adequate.

Incentivized

UsabilityHub provides very fast, short responses to specific questions about a static image of a website. This is useful for checking what is most prominent on a page, what they would click on, what they see/read within the first 5 seconds of landing etc. WhatUsersDo is a broader tool, that records the screen and audio as a user navigates the website. You can set tasks and ask questions, but it much more about the user journey experience and their opinion, rather than testing a particular feature. Feedback also takes a bit longer. Hotjar is a combination of both, its a screen recording which helps you to see where users click and move to, but there is no audio or text feedback, just heatmaps/click maps for watching user behaviour.

Incentivized

Prior to Usersnap we looked at and even tried to bring up Bugzilla, but it requires a lot of maintenance and customization in my opinion. We needed something that was ready to use out of the box, which Usersnap certainly was. The other problem with Bugzilla is that it's mostly for software development bugs, that is, bugs submitted by developers, not really end users. Yes, it can be used by end-users, but not as intuitively as Usersnap.

Incentivized

• Increase in testing frequency per quarter.
• Increase in approved projects for developments.
• Few reverts per project.

Incentivized

• Usersnap has allowed us to implement a solution that allows end-users to communicate with us with very little effort.

Incentivized