Among the best user research tools out there
Updated July 18, 2022

Among the best user research tools out there

Anonymous | TrustRadius Reviewer
Score 6 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User

Overall Satisfaction with UserZoom

UserZoom is currently only being utilized by the UX team for product-focused research and design research. Right now, the UX team and some product team members (like product managers) have access to the platform, but really, it's only used by the researchers, though we do have a new designer who is familiar with research and may start using it. Most of the research we do is with designs, like usability tests, click tests, and some surveys. Everything is in service of design-focused research where we are looking to improve on an existing design.
  • Flexibility with how to design tests, easy to reorder, easy to copy
  • Usability tests, the test builder is pretty easy
  • Moderated Usability Tests have a virtual observation room for stakeholders, which is EXCELLENT!
  • Compared with some other tools, because their video conferencing platform is web-based (vs. using Zoom, which has a desktop app), I find the connection buffers a lot and it's kind of annoying
  • Their screening tool on the UserZoom side (not Go) is clunky. Just let me select May, Must, or Should not for criteria rather than the weird interface design they have now.
  • Logic panel is a little confusing, sometimes I do a double-take, sometimes it's wonky and resets itself. It's just not as easy to use as it could be.
  • They haven't integrated UserZoom and UserZoom Go (formerly Validately)
  • It's expensive!
  • We signed up for a high sample size license with unlimited tests, but we're finding their panel doesn't fill as fast as their biggest competitor, UserTesting. We've struggled to fill n=100 sample tests with fairly general criteria.
  • A lot of their licenses only allow limited concurrent studies, whereas UserTesting had unlimited tests that you could launch at a time. It's slowed us down.
  • Observation Room
  • Quantitative methodologies
  • Panel
  • Slower survey fill times slow down decision-making
  • Observation room has increased research transparency
  • Continued research with a panel - it's better than doing no research!
  • Quantitative methods give us more tools to answer research questions.
Love the virtual observation room, no one else has this feature. It's got a robust panel, but we wanted to try it out to compare with UserTesting's panel. Userlytics has a substantially smaller panel. Lastly, it's got quantitative tools that the competitors don't have, or didn't when we were reevaluating our contract. Also, UserTesting changed our contract model so that's why we reevaluated our contract. We gained some tools, but we didn't sign anything long term, so we are still evaluating how well it fits our needs.

Do you think UserZoom delivers good value for the price?


Are you happy with UserZoom's feature set?


Did UserZoom live up to sales and marketing promises?


Did implementation of UserZoom go as expected?


Would you buy UserZoom again?


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.