UserZoom

It's well suited for a larger organisation that wants a tool that allows them to easily research ideas / journeys combining a few methodologies in one, that multiple teams can have access to and research without extra costs involved

UserZoom is really useful for getting qualitative feedback on prototype designs. It can also be used to run quantitative surveys. They have their own recruitment, so sourcing participants is automatic and easy. It is one of the better platforms for obtaining feedback quickly. However, I have found them to be significantly more expensive than other providers of both qual[itative] and quant[itative] research.

UserZoom is very capable of creating a space for a UI team to ask important questions about the usability of a product. The wide number of test options is definitely a strength of the platform as a whole. Teams can create forms, click-tasks, surveys, browser sharing experiences (and more) in order to search for their desired customer insights. While the number of testing styles is robust, I would recommend the platform continue to update its own UI in order to stay up to date with other testing platforms on the market. Overall, I would highly recommend the platform as a tool to help better understand how applications are perceived by user-audiences first hand.

I think UserZoom is great because it's a good platform coupled with a panel. This is what makes solutions like this shine because building a test is only half the battle, you do have to field the test with some people. Compared with its competitor UserTesting, it's debatable which one fills faster. We have the ability to launch higher sample tests with UserZoom, which may explain why it's taken longer to fill studies. We also have quant tools, like click tests, tree tests, card sorts, and surveys that we really didn't have on UserTesting.

I love UserZoom's virtual observation room, where stakeholders can see sessions themselves in real time without having to make themselves visible to participants. This is a big reason why we switched from UserTesting, which uses Zoom, so all meeting participants are visible to the research participant. The downside of UserZoom is that their video platform is web-based, so it often buffers or lags when people don't have the strongest connection. With big prototypes, like Figma prototypes, it takes a looong time to load.

I also love their method of sending users to prototypes. It makes a huge difference when doing cognitive walkthroughs, where I can reset the prototype myself or bring them to a particular screen on my own, without having to walk them through the path to get there.

Lastly, just have to mention that their screening tool on UserZoom, not GO, is clunky. It's not as easy to screen participants as other solutions.

I have been using UserZoom to conduct unmoderated tasks and live sessions for a year for various research purposes such as identifying UX issues, validating new design concepts, understanding the users' behaviors, or even running competitor analysis. It was fairly easy to learn the tool as a first-time user. Also, it's easy to set up tests using different research methods like Card Sorting, Tasks, Test Clicks, and more.