Top 8 dscout alternatives for better UX research in 2025

dscout is known for its remote user research tools, including diary studies and participant recruitment features, making it a go-to for easy qualitative insights.

But it might not check all the boxes on your UX research wishlist. dscout often falls short in key areas like integrations and quantitative research. Add in the higher price tag, and many teams start looking elsewhere.

If that’s where you are right now, you’re in the right place. From pricing tables to top features, here are the top eight dscout alternatives to consider for your team.

We’ve rounded up the best dscout competitors and outlined pros, cons, and pricing, giving you a clear look at how they measure up. Let’s find the perfect fit for your team.

Maze is the UX research platform that makes user insights available at the speed of product development. With both moderated and unmoderated research methods, Maze empowers your UX team with a comprehensive suite of research methods to create truly user-centered designs.

As a holistic UX research platform, Maze goes beyond user testing—offering participant recruitment and management solutions, a variety of user research templates tailored to different research needs, and advanced AI features for data analysis and reporting.

Plus, Maze also integrates with your favorite tools—such as Figma, AdobeXD, Sketch, Slack, and Amplitude—to share insights across your team and incorporate user feedback into your design and development processes.

While users can access Maze through web browsers on mobile devices, there isn’t (yet) a dedicated mobile app

Besides offering a more comprehensive suite of user research tools, Maze stands out with its blend of qualitative and quantitative features—providing teams an all-in-one research platform. Maze also offers flexible, affordable pricing, making it easier for teams to run frequent tests without blowing their budget.

Integrations are another strong point for Maze. While dscout integrates with Figma, Slack, and Miro, Maze offers a range of integrations to streamline your workflow. It connects with a variety of design platforms, analytics, and collaboration tools, letting you quickly set up tests and prototypes without friction.

Janet Taylor, Senior Director of Product Design and Research at Homebase says, “Maze allows us to consolidate our research in one place and make it visible for everyone. Launching the study on Maze was extremely fast and easy. We sent it to our Reach panel and gathered around 300 responses in less than two days.”

The verdict: Maze is a cost-effective, all-in-one platform that simplifies your workflow. If you want to gather both qualitative and quantitative insights, integrate easily with your design stack, and avoid steep pricing, Maze stands out as the strongest choice.

Userlytics is a user experience testing platform designed to help you identify usability issues and improve customer experience. With both moderated and unmoderated testing options, it lets you collect detailed feedback through video, audio, and screen recordings. The platform supports usability testing on websites, mobile apps, and prototypes.

Userlytics pricing can be confusing, but we’ve done the research so you don’t have to.

Premium and Advanced plans require you to provide your own research participants. Enterprise and Custom include access to the Userlytics participant panel. Project-based pricing is suitable for one-off studies.

Userlytics offers a wider range of research methods than dscout, including card sorting and accessibility testing. With a large participant pool, Userlytics provides access to diverse user feedback. In contrast, dscout’s smaller, U.S.-centric panel of 530,000 participants might limit insights for teams targeting international audiences.

One Userlytics user shares they have been using Userlytics for five years: "The tool has improved quite a bit in terms of functionality and usability." However, another user shares that “[Userlytics] has continually been behind the curve on visualizing the data.” While the platform’s come a long way, it still seems to be missing some vital components for UX researchers.

The verdict: Userlytics is a solid option if you’re willing to pay for access to their participant pool, or want to run one-off tests. Meanwhile, dscout works better for enterprise teams focused on qualitative, U.S.-specific research.

UserTesting supports both moderated and unmoderated tests, with its primary feature being Live Conversation—real-time interviews via video conferencing tools like Zoom. The platform also offers scheduling and reminder features to simplify the process.

UserTesting’s analytics suite includes features like sentiment analysis, click maps, and path flows, providing actionable insights into user behavior.

UserTesting doesn’t publicly share its pricing, though users have reported that plans start at approximately $20,000 per seat/year.

When it comes to participant recruitment, UserTesting’s global Contributor Network offers worldwide testers, while dscout’s smaller, U.S.-centric pool is better suited for studies targeting this specific region. However, reviews frequently flag participant quality as a concern, which could be due to UserTesting’s promotion as a pay-to-test service.

UserTesting’s surrounding features for interviews make it a go-to option for moderated testing, but some users note the transcription feature needs improvement, while other users find creating highlight reels “quite tedious."

The verdict: Both platforms are better suited for large teams with substantial budgets. Choose UserTesting if you’re a large enterprise with a roomy budget and a need for global participant access.

Optimal Workshop focuses on information architecture (IA) assessment, offering card sorting and tree testing to gather qualitative and quantitative user feedback on the structure of your product or website. The platform also provides first-click testing and UX surveys, allowing for another angle of analysis for user interactions.

In terms of features, Optimal Workshop and dscout are fairly distinct: Optimal Workshop focuses on researching a website’s information organization, while dscout offers a range of qualitative research tools.

One Optimal Workshop user shares, “There are a lot of test types that are offered and lots of ways to customize them to your needs.” However, users do report some issues with test participants. “Not all participants who take part in the survey take the survey seriously. A lot of time goes to waste on filtering this out.”

The verdict: In terms of pricing, both platforms are on the high end. Optimal Workshop is the better choice if you’re focusing specifically on IA, especially in the early stages of development. For a tool to suit additional use cases, you’re better off with another alternative from this list.

Hotjar is a product and user behavior analytics tool that provides visual insights into user interactions on websites and apps. Its primary features include heatmaps and session recordings, allowing teams to track metrics like click frequency and cursor movement. Plus, Hotjar's API lets you export responses to various tools, integrating them into your existing workflows.

Hotjar's strengths lie in its laser focus on behavioral data. However, it lacks options for usability testing and only works for live websites—a significant drawback for teams that want user input from the very start of the product design and development process.

It’s also worth noting the steep learning curve, with users complaining that “it can take some time to learn the platform”. Other users report that Hotjar can “take a toll on website performance”.

The verdict: Hotjar likely offers better value for money for those prioritizing cost-effectiveness and a balance of quantitative and qualitative research tools focused on user behavior. However, it does miss the key functionalities you need for comprehensive user research. If live product analytics is your focus, then Hotjar fits the bill.

Lookback allows for both moderated and unmoderated usability testing across mobile and desktop devices. You can run various studies, including 1:1 interviews, remote ethnographic research, card sorting, tree testing, and diary studies.

Lookback’s plans are billed annually and come with a 60-day free trial:

dscout offers a more comprehensive suite of research tools and native participant recruitment, while Lookback provides a more affordable option for basic usability testing and user interviews.

Lookback users highlight the ‘observation room’ feature as a favorite, noting that “many people can observe the interviews live and comment on what is happening with the interviewer.” However, most negative reviews highlight technical issues as the tool’s main drawback, with one user saying, “Users had trouble getting into a session through the tool. They needed to download the app and allow several permissions before they were connected.”

The verdict: Choose Lookback if you have your own participant pool, primarily need user interview tools, and are working with a smaller budget or as a freelancer.

Loop11 is a usability testing platform that enables businesses to conduct both moderated and unmoderated tests on websites and prototypes across various devices. It offers features such as A/B testing, heatmaps, session recordings, and clickstream analytics.

Loop11 primarily focuses on usability testing and user experience research. The platform also has several recruitment options, including panels from User Interviews, TestingTime, and Prolific, its own Loop11 Panel of qualified participants, or inviting your own participants.

Compared to dscout, Loop11 is more suited to teams pursuing quantitative research who are looking to test cross-platform. However, some users are wholeheartedly disappointed in the platform, stating, “It has been a poor tool overall, with aspects that need to be improved.”

The verdict: Choose Loop11 if your focus is on usability testing, but consider other options on our list if you’re after a wider variety of testing methodologies.

Lyssna (formerly UsabilityHub) offers usability testing methods including card sorting, first-click testing, five-second testing, preference testing, and prototype testing. For qualitative research, Lyssna offer surveys and user interviews.

Lyssna focuses on quick, quantitative usability testing and is more affordable for smaller teams and projects compared to dscout.

The platform receives mixed reviews when it comes to the testing pool, with one Lyssna user mentioning that “Lyssna's pool of testers is speedy, and provides clear feedback,” while another states “the quality of the responses was very poor. I did two tests. I had to cancel the first one as the responses coming in were useless.”

The verdict: Choose Lyssna if you need quick tests and have a smaller budget or only conduct occasional research. If you’re looking for comprehensive research options or a reliable participant panel, other tools on our list may be a better option.

dscout is a perfectly good option for qualitative user research, but it doesn’t always deliver when you need more robust, scalable tools. Here’s where it often falls short:

Let’s take a look at each of these:

dscout is good at capturing stories, feelings, and user motivations through live user interviews and diary studies. But if you need hard numbers—like click-through rates, completion times, or usability scores—you’re out of luck. You’ll need to rely on extra tools to fill that gap, which can complicate your UX workflow, increase costs, and slow down your decision-making process.

While dscout connects with a few popular tools—Figma, Slack, and Miro—this might not be enough if your design team uses another prototyping tool (e.g. Sketch, Axure), or your research team is looking to cross-reference insights with product analytics (e.g. Amplitude, Atlassian). Consider whether the time spent manually transferring data or patching together reports from multiple sources is worth it.

dscout doesn’t publish its pricing details, so if you’re looking to compare pricing options of UX research tools, you’ll have to look online. According to reports, a single project can start at around $3,000, with annual costs sometimes averaging around $60,000/year. A Reddit user has reported that the Enterprise plan starts at $75,000/year.

To make things more complicated, dscout bases its pricing on multiple factors like user seats, activity credits, and support levels. While this adds flexibility, it also increases unpredictable costs—and sets up your team to run out of budget just as you ramp up activity to grow your product.

Choosing the right alternative to dscout depends on your team’s unique research needs, priorities, and budget. Here’s how to choose a research platform that fits your team:

While dscout is a viable option for qualitative research, its limitations in quantitative methods and integrations can hold back your team.

Maze addresses these challenges. With a complete suite of research tools, including moderated interviews, prototype testing, and surveys, Maze empowers you to validate ideas quickly. Its seamless integration with your team’s tech stack, plus AI-powered analysis saves time and ensures your decisions are backed by both qualitative and quantitative insights.