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.

UserTesting's platform is the most comprehensive. While it may not have the best analytics features, survey features, recruitment features, etc, it has everything you need to run evaluative and generative research.

User Interviews, like the name mentions, is highly focused on exactly that. The issue with this platform is that for any other type of testing you need to purchase third party integrations. This ends up costing more and gets complicated. I do enjoy the tool for what it is but wouldn’t opt for it as a UX Designer.

UserTesting allows for a quicker recruiting process for our studies. Additionally, UserTesting has more unmoderated research features and capabilities. I think that their payment model is also easier than UserInterviews. We typically user UserTesting for reaching our hard to reach segments and recruiting prospective users not already within our product user population.

UserTesting is superior because of their vast panel, speed, and intuitiveness.

I would say the merger of UserZoom definitely has helped Usertesting to be then number 1 tool in the market. dscout works great for diary studies but other than that has some limitations and is not as robust as usertesting.com

User Testing is so much easier to use than other user testing tools. It's also pretty good for transcription and now they do transcription in Spanish, which is also an important part of my work and that was one of the reasons I used Dovetail. Now I still use Dovetail as it's a much better option for a research repository than user testing when using multiple research tools.

I wasn't the person who selected Usertesting, but I did use this in previous company so I was aware of their capabilities. I really enjoy how usertesting applies their research methods and have a greater support. The UserZoom was easy to handle but I don't remember how it was the internal recruitment in there, for example. And I really liked the way Lookback was easy to handle for users better than Usertesting.

Only used User Testing, got lucky out of the gate and never saw a need to change to an inferior platform.

UserTesting is much better than UserZoom because their panel of participants is much bigger, in case we needed to find a specific target audience that take a long time to find and source. Also, UserTesting has a much easier to use platform and is more intuitive and simpler to use. UserTesting uses Zoom while UserZoom has their own video recording software which is not easy to use.

UserTesting has a robust panel, and ease of setting up tasks. Lookback was particularly helpful to set up observation sessions and note taking.

They always have available studies

Previously used UserZoom. They did the job to a certain extent but after not being completely satisfied and shopping around we re-trialed UserTesting and [were] pleasantly surprised. Much better than when we had previously trialed UserTesting 12 months previously. Much nicer user interface, more flexibility in terms of functionality and features, and much quicker response times for tests being completed.

Content square, quantum metric, Guidepoint, Adobe, Foresee/Verint

User Testing provided me with several research methodologies especially when it comes to qualitative data about users.
It is easy to use and required less learning curve
User Testing offers a high quality panel, it is easy to get the required number of participants for my research studies
Offers great learning resources

User Testing is great for:
Script
Creating clips
Dashboard organisation

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 population with no screening criteria. Userlytics is fine, but it's pretty basic, and they also have a challenging credit model. I do prefer platforms that allow you to bring your own users at no additional cost, because you're already paying for usage of the platform.

UserTesting is the best on the market for the ability to really get targeted.

Platform simplicity first, good pricing packages, good testing type coverage for multi-purpose use, good audience/panel. dscout is still very specialized in diary studies and does not offer a good platform for usability testing and high-level visual concept evaluation. Usabilla has less possibility to personalize survey studies with visual elements and widget integration of invasion/Figma prototype to expose more UX/UI details to users. Maze was the real competitor in the more wide and generic usage, but they are a bit more complex and less straightforward than UserTesting, especially for UX/UI validation.

UserTesting and Dovetail support each other well.

For me, UserTesting is the standard to beat so if other products don't offer the same then, to my mind, they fail. What I get from UserTesting that other products can't seem to match is: 1) speed of recruitment - UserTesting can always find participants, even when my criteria might be challenging, 2) audio and video - if I'm doing qual research, I have to hear what I person says; I wouldn't do research any other way, 3) not restricting me to concurrent studies.

Survey Monkey is good for providing more quantatative results. It is quick and very easy to use with instant feedback as it is completed. There are no transcripts to deal with, checking through to make sure they have been annotated correctly.

I have no used any other product similar to UserTesting. I am aware of User Interviews but do not think it has the audience/user reach like user testing does. I have used a variety of survey programs like SurveyMonkey and Typeform and have used them in conjunction with UserTesting to review a user's thoughts while they're taking a survey.

UserTesting was clearly better based on the cohort of established users (1.6 Million, I believe), which is the largest in the industry. Their platform is mature and has all the features we need, including highlight reels, real-time transcription, and clips. They also have built-in analysis tools that make reporting on the findings virtually automatic, saving us a ton of time.

None at this time.