UserTesting

I'd definitely recommend the platform, especially with the addition of video and audio recordings it greatly helps you get a much better insight on how potential customer reacts to a design or user experience before you want to implement and roll it out into a website or application production environment.

The cost seems high, but if you have a UX process that includes getting customer feedback on every product or service feature you're creating, the cost really evens out compared to doing your own recruiting.

UserTesting is well-suited for quick usability tests (moderated or unmoderated), particularly if they're lo-fi. These include preference tests, first click tests, and anything that is discussion-based and not overly asset-heavy. However, UserTesting gets buggy when tests are complicated (launching several prototypes or files) or contain a longer script. There are also frequent no-shows for the interviews.

UserTesting is a great resource for collecting user data on a variety of different mediums. We love how quickly we can run tests and get feedback from users that fit our demographics. We are very fortunate to use it as a OneWorld recipient, but I have heard from others that it can get pricey for companies that are not nonprofits.

UserTesting is a magical tool for the product managers for testing their prototypes and features, the user pool at UserTesting is trustworthy and the results obtained add value to decision making. The responses are real quick and the ability to find a pool that very well suits your criteria of demographics is a big plus. Have used other user testing tools, but I find UserTesting the most useful as of today.

It's great for general testing, but can be difficult to find some very specific audiences although this is more a reflection of the audience size. UserTesting has the largest available panel as far as we're aware.

Best suited for designers who are testing out a service or product and need feedback as soon as possible[.]

It's great for fast, quick, and efficient testing of general users. It may be less appropriate if you wanted to test a specific audience. For example, if my company wanted to test internally with specific teams, it'd be easier to organize an interview without having to send them a UserTesting link.

Appropriate: UserTesting is probably the best thing on the market at what it does. It's perfectly suited to any remote testing scenario (with your own participants or their panel), particularly at short notice.

Less appropriate: Have a bit of a think about your target audience. Are they well represented by the people available via this panel? Also consider whether their personal devices will be up to the task of running browser-intensive apps and whether they're ready for sharing video.

It is a great tool for unmoderated testing. It makes it easy and fast to obtain user feedback on prototypes and live products across devices. Some of the testers are there for the money only and rush through the tasks without much elaboration. The live conversation features could also be improved.

[UserTesting is] really great for usability testing when you have a somewhat functional prototype but I find it less useful when I have what are essentially just detailed sketches. When I have open unanswered questions about what I am building I always throw them in as its an easy way to gather a lot of opinions quickly.

Great for learning how easy (or hard) a new feature on a mobile app or mobile web page is. Also, gut checks on final designs before they are launched. Since responses are garnered so quickly, lead time is minimal.

Haven't had a situation where UserTesting was less appropriate yet.

It is a very good tool for our needs, but there are many shortcomings - the UI is bad; product often lags; it is counterintuitive while creating tests; they change plans and the features included often - so you sometimes lose what you previously paid for; their model for tests is bad - you can only recruit 10 ppl per test, which is a small number.

User Testing is great for marketing and brand teams, product managers, product designers, and even developers. It can be used by any industry, but especially companies which struggle to get in front of their end-users, whether due to budget or time constraints. With minimal training, any employee can utilize the tool for insights.

Very well suited for quick, unmoderated testing. Generally very good for usability work; not as great for exploratory work since it requires some different things and often, our own participants.

UserTesting is good for small qualitative studies to get insights about how participants perform a task and get feedback on our products. It has helped us to see the strengths and weaknesses of our designs and user journeys. It's not so good for larger quantitative studies where we need to get feedback from a larger number of views. Another area is the ability to run across age groups to see if there are differences in how tasks are done or if views differ by age. It would be good to have an easier way to manage this, as currently we set up individual tests per age group.

Being able to easily run counterbalanced A/B tests is super convenient. There's no need to enter all tasks twice; you just click a button and all tasks are copied. Most studies are equally easy to set up. When it comes to testing physical products, it is a bit more involved but still extremely convenient.

Appropriate: live testing, prototype testing, and product testing. Less appropriate: real-time site data collection.

UserTesting has been very helpful in the pandemic, not having access to people in real life. Yet being able to test our work out is very helpful.

UserTesting is qualitative. So, if you are looking for qualitative (the "why") insights, UserTesting is amazing. If you want quantitative data, UserTesting will not be the best resource.

Some examples:
Use UserTesting for: concept tests to understand how users react to concepts. Gain feedback from target audience similar to a focus group. Ask participants questions and even have conversations with them about your idea or product.

UserTesting would not be as helpful for: AB testing, or gaining a statistically significant winning option. Gaining quantitative data. For this, an AB testing platform or survey tool would be better.

If you are looking at redesign your digital experiences UserTesting will allow you to continue to be agile while creating the best possible experience for your users.

Great to quickly validate new patterns and to run general usability testing for new product features. It can quickly put together a test, launch it, and have results in a few hours. It has been a vital tool in providing research readouts to product leadership.

UserTesting is great for quick usability feedback where you don't have specific requirements for your users. Usually, we get results within the same day so that's great. The quality of users in the panel is very different. Usually, we get some good ones that really explain why they think something is good or bad.

UserTesting is not so great if you want to manage your own panel and do tests with your own users. Companies should be careful when doing research that they not only depend on a tool like UserTesting, because people get paid to do your tests, they don't have any personal involvement with your product. This could lead to biased answers and could lead companies in the wrong way. We tried to create our own users' panel on UserTesting, but the functionality is so limited that we switched back to our old ways. We do additional testing and interviews with our own real users so that we make sure we're not getting biased results.

[UserTesting] is well suited to smaller organizations who are after qualitative feedback on shorter experiences. It's less appropriate for big organizations who need a more qualitative approach/feedback that is quick to go through.

UserTesting is great for getting fast responses to small, iterative tests. It is very nice to filter UserTesting's panel down to exactly the audience you are looking for. It is also nice that you don't have to find your own testers. The subscription model is very confusing and expensive to add team members.