UserTesting increases the speed of research but has some buggy usability!
January 04, 2022

UserTesting increases the speed of research but has some buggy usability!

Anonymous | TrustRadius Reviewer
Score 8 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User

Overall Satisfaction with UserTesting

I work in UX Research and I use UserTesting weekly to reach out to users of our product. We test designs, product concepts, copy, and other product decisions with the real user reaction.
  • Creating interview clips is simple. The video cutting software is easy to use and lightyears ahead of competitors like UserZoom.
  • The pool of participants is large in the US (likely the highest amongst competitors). This makes recruiting for my studies really quick and allows me to go for some segmentation and detail in who I target in my sample.
  • Chat support is responsive and helpful. It's nice to get connected to a customer care agent quickly and they almost always serve you with a solution to the issue.
  • The feature set of User Testing is constantly growing and getting more refined. I appreciate the ability to card sort or launch other types of methods.
  • UserTesting is generally buggy. It is not unusual for the site or some core function of the site to go down for several business hours. The more complicated the test, the more malfunction you can expect.
  • The UserTesting app experience and mobile experience is not optimized. It frequently quits on testers and causes unusable video responses. The UT instruction box also covers over testers' screens and makes it difficult for them to handle the mobile prototype as well as the UT instructions.
  • The sentiment analysis tags are frequently off in determining whether the user said something positive or negative. They are basically unusable.
  • You can't ask a screener question that isn't multiple choice.
  • Faster time to study recruitment
  • Quicker to obtain insights due to built-in participant pool and incentives
  • Easy to launch tests and get product questions answered
Support is generally helpful and quick to respond. I like the chat function as it does square away most simple questions and issues. However, when a test gets put "on hold" due to a tester issue, there is no way to report why that test is on hold. The tester provides detail but cannot show a screenshot or other assets, making it based solely on their description. This is usually not enough information to go by. We are also then dependent on UT to restart the test and are unaware of their timeline.
The test creation usability is intuitive. I particularly like the ability to save templates or recommend likert scales. However, the many bugs of UserTesting bring the score down, such as when the Metrics page won't load.
I feel like I've already stated all this already. I am able to recruit studies more quickly, which leads me to launch more studies, and therefore get insights more quickly. This then gets our product and design questions answered, leading to business decisions that are more sound and less risky.

Do you think UserTesting delivers good value for the price?

Not sure

Are you happy with UserTesting's feature set?


Did UserTesting live up to sales and marketing promises?


Did implementation of UserTesting go as expected?


Would you buy UserTesting again?


Adobe Illustrator CC, Adobe PhotoShop, Microsoft 365 (formerly Office 365)
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.