13 UserTesting alternatives and competitors in 2025

User research is an essential step in the product development process, and there are many UX research tools to help you along the way. While UserTesting is one option, it’s by no means the only tool for getting UX insights.

We’ve compiled a list of 13 alternatives to UserTesting—complete with pros, cons, customer reviews, and pricing information.

Every business has different needs—let’s find a solution that fits yours.

Here’s a quick overview of the best UserTesting alternatives, starting with the tool itself for reference:

Maze is the leading user research platform helping UX researchers, UX designers, and product teams uncover user insights at the speed of product development. It offers qualitative and quantitative research methods, and supports both moderated and unmoderated testing.

Alongside the extensive suite of user research methods, Maze is also intuitive to use, offers 50+ pre-built testing templates, and integrates with your team’s favorite tools like: Figma, Adobe XD, Notion, Slack, and more.

Maze is a versatile platform for running multiple types of moderated and unmoderated research, giving you one holistic platform for all your UX research needs. Features include:

No native mobile app support: While users can access Maze through web browsers on mobile devices, there isn’t currently a dedicated mobile app.

Many users praise Maze's seamless integration with popular design tools, like Figma and Sketch, which simplifies the testing process. Neha T. says: “The best thing I liked about Maze is the easy integration of Figma prototypes for prototyping testing, user testing."

Another user, Pedro U., commended Maze for its user-friendly design that allows easy remote usability testing and its compatibility with major design tools. Nora C., a Product Designer, says “Maze is always improving” and loves the usefulness of the filters in results, which improves the overall testing experience.

Maze offers three pricing options for organizations and product teams of all sizes:

If you’re comparing UserTesting to Maze, there are some key differences to consider between the two tools:

The verdict: Choose Maze if you want both moderated and unmoderated testing and reporting capabilities. Maze is also a user-friendly alternative if you want to enable more people from your team to conduct continuous research at any time in the development lifecycle.

Lookback is a user research platform that places a stronger emphasis on qualitative research methods and in-depth user interviews. It enables product teams to work collaboratively with its "Observation Room" feature, which allows multiple team members to watch user interactions in real time.

While Lookback has been appreciated for its user research features, it's important to note that the most recent reviews available are from 2022, and therefore could be considered outdated.

Some reviews highlight technical challenges that affect user experience. For example, Demet E. points out issues related to the required plug-in, stating, "Users have a lot of difficulty with the plug-in, which sometimes causes no-shows." This suggests a barrier that could deter participants from successfully joining research sessions. Similarly, Taylor J. says "Some users had trouble getting into a session through the tool... it wasn't easy to troubleshoot."

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

Lookback and UserTesting are similar in terms of testing types. Both focus on remote moderated testing but offer some unmoderated capabilities. However, Lookback’s prices are much more affordable for small businesses.

Unlike UserTesting or Maze, Lookback doesn’t have a pool of testers available, meaning you’d need to recruit test participants separately or through an agency.

They both have good video capabilities, but Lookback’s live and time-stamped comments allow for easier navigation of video user research.

The verdict: Choose Lookback if you need to easily scan your customer interviews. If you need multiple team members to have access to the tool and conduct user research, Lookback might be a more cost-effective solution.

Optimal Workshop is a user research platform that uses multiple testing methods to collect qualitative and quantitative insights. The platform offers solutions for user research, UX design, and information architecture.

Optimal Workshop has received mixed reviews from users over the years. However, it's important to note that the most recent user reviews are from 2022, which may not fully reflect the current state of the platform.

Alicia C., a UX Researcher, appreciates the simplicity and variety of test types offered by Optimal Workshop, particularly valuing the first-click tests. However, Alicia also expresses concerns about the platform's limitations in screening questions, which impacts the precision in selecting desired audience groups. They also find it challenging to aggregate user answers post-test, which complicates the analysis process.

These prices are based on annual billing, with a seven-day free trial:

Optimal Workshop is fairly accessible for a range of users. The main difference between Optimal Workshop and UserTesting is that Optimal Workshop is more accessible for smaller teams and startups.

UserTesting and Optimal Workshop both support unmoderated and moderated tests, but UserTesting is more focused on moderated sessions.

The verdict: Pick Optimal Workshop if you’re a small team that’s just starting to incorporate user research and you’re working with a limited budget or don’t mind working without design integrations. If your product team has over 15-20 seats, or you’re looking for more nuanced prototype feedback, try a solution like Maze or UserTesting to increase the quality of reports and insights.

Lyssna–formely UsabilityHub–is a research tool made for designers, product managers, and marketers looking for a fast way to run remote research. Solutions include usability testing, user interviews, surveys, market research, and research participant recruitment.

Lyssna receives mixed reviews on popular review sites. While Sharon R. appreciates how easy it is to use Lyssna for testing Figma prototypes and adding various test sections, other users express a need for deeper analytics or customizable reporting options.

Prices based on annual subscriptions:

Lyssna and UserTesting are both highly-qualified user research tools that can provide answers quickly. However, users believe Lyssna is easier to adopt than UserTesting. Mostly because Lyssna was designed for non-researchers, giving the app a gentler learning curve.

UserTesting only connects to AdobeXD, whereas Lyssna connects to Figma, Sketch, Invision, and Balsamiq so if you’re looking to integrate with a variety of other tools, Lyssna offers more options. Both tools offer moderated and unmoderated user research tools so you’re able to run a variety of research projects.

The verdict: If you want both moderated and unmoderated research solutions and you use Figma, Sketch, Invision or Balsamiq for design, Lyssna is best for you. If you design in Adobe XD, stick to UserTesting or another alternative.

Loop11 is a moderated and unmoderated research tool that aims to uncover insights with minimal hassle. Loop11 lets you test usability, benchmark, run A/B tests, evaluate your search engine findability, do architecture testing, and more.

User reviews suggest that Loop11's feature set may not effectively support all testing requirements. Some users find the platform limited in scope and not fully equipped to handle their specific needs.

Judith E. shares concerns about Loop11's feature range, noting it as limited and not fully supportive of all testing needs. She suggests, "It would be better to have tools for automated testing and improvements in the API for regression testing," Anno C. says, "One aspect that needs to be improved is the inclusion of accessibility analysis and responsiveness testing for web applications."

Loop11 plans come with a 14-day free trial. These are based on annual billing:

Loop11 and UserTesting both allow for moderated and unmoderated testing. However, both tools also receive criticism from users for ease of use, though Loop11’s learning curve appears to be slightly less steep. Unlike UserTesting, Loop11 doesn’t let you export your data on its most basic plan, and the reporting capabilities of UserTesting are more detailed than Loop11’s.

The verdict: If you want to run remote moderated and unmoderated tests at an accessible cost, then it’s worth considering Loop11 over UserTesting. However, if you need more in-depth moderated testing analytics and have the budget, UserTesting or another tool on this list might be a better choice.

Userfeel is a moderated and unmoderated user research platform designed by UX researchers. Instead of subscription-based pricing, with Userfeel you can pay on an as-needed basis. You can also run multiple types of tests to measure UX and conversion rates.

While the platform has its strengths, user reviews suggest that there are some areas where Userfeel could improve to better serve its users' needs. Krezcely B. says that there can be delays in deploying tests that might affect users who require quicker turnaround times.

Another user Gerard G. highlights a need for improvement in Userfeel’s functionality, "The transcripts need some work.” They also said that the platform does not support tree testing, which could limit its utility for more research tasks.

Each 'credit' costs $60 USD, with price per test varying:

UserTesting and Userfeel are very different platforms. UserTesting is aimed at big companies that perform regular testing, whereas Userfeel is useful for any business looking to run a quick test.

Userfeel appears to be more popular in terms of providing a seamless customer experience—unsurprising, considering it was designed by UX researchers. Its unique pricing plan also makes it an interesting alternative.

The verdict: Pick Userfeel if you’re not testing your platform frequently. If, however, you follow a more continuous approach to testing, it’s worth going with any of the other platforms in this list.

Dscout is a remote qualitative research platform that supports research via mobile and desktop. It offers research tools like Diary, Live, and Express missions, with a global participant pool for rich, in-context user insights.

Dscout offers three different subscription options: Researcher, Team, and Enterprise. While Dscout’s pricing is not readily available on the website a Reddit user says the Enterprise plan starts at $75K a year.

Some users, like Fynn M., raise concerns about the functionality of dscout's video clipping tool, stating, “It cuts off some words at the beginning and end of clips." Another user Sarah S. discusses interface challenges, explaining, "full tag names aren't visible unless they're short, which complicates the tagging process."

While Dscout offers diverse research tools, users complain of challenges in recruiting participants from outside the US and Canada. UserTesting is a better choice if you want to run usability tests and access a large pool of participants.

The verdict:
Dscout is a solid option for enterprises and large teams that want to run remote qualitative testing. If you're on a tight budget, other tools give you access to more features like card sorting, design tool integrations, prototype testing, and live website testing for less upfront. (For example, Maze does all this for a starting price of $99 per month).

Userlytics lets researchers collect qualitative and quantitative insights by conducting moderated and unmoderated tests on various digital assets, including websites, mobile apps, and prototypes. With a panel of 2,000,000 users and features like card sorting, tree testing, and device-specific testing, Userlytics helps teams identify UX issues and improve customer engagement. The platform also provides advanced metrics and graphical reports for effective data analysis.

Lacks multilingual transcription options in subscription packages
Pay-as-you-go plan may not be cost-effective for continuous research
Advanced research methods like prototype testing, card sorting, and tree testing are only available in expensive plans

While Userlytics gets high praise for its extensive toolkit and responsive customer support, users share challenges while running usability and session management. For example, Laila B. shares, "The transcription has a lot of problems when the person has an accent.." which impacts data reliability. Another user, Tamar M., voices concern about Userlytics' credit system, explaining, “I have all these leftover credits for bringing my own users that I would rather use from the Userlytics testers”, showing the limited flexibility in how users can allocate their resources for testing.

Since Userlytics has a usage-based approach to pricing, we experimented with the sliders on their pricing options (for 50 to 1,750 sessions/year) and found:

Userlytics offers both moderated and unmoderated testing, while UserTesting focuses on a moderated and qualitative approach. In terms of pricing, Userlytics and UserTesting are both less accessible for smaller businesses or teams with limited budgets.

The verdict: Choose Userlytics if you want to run both unmoderated and moderated testing from one platform. If you already have a pool of testers, opt for UserTesting and combine it with other tools in your workflow to get deeper insights into user experience. If pricing is a big consideration for you, Maze is the best value solution on our list.

Sprig empowers organizations to gather real-time insights through targeted microsurveys, concept tests, and in-product experiments, directly within their digital products like websites and apps. The platform supports event-triggered surveys and A/B tests, enabling companies to make data-driven decisions rapidly. Sprig's analytics dashboard offers reporting tools that visualize user feedback to pinpoint usability issues and improve user engagement efficiently.

While many users appreciate Sprig's capabilities, some have faced challenges or identified areas where the platform could improve to better meet their needs.
Christine K. expresses some difficulties in adjusting settings to improve visibility for survey participants, impacting the effectiveness of the tasks. They mention technical glitches, explaining, "I had a couple of survey participants state that the task came up with a black screen and that the prototype did not show." Another user Zach F., while generally positive about Sprig, points out areas needing integration improvements, saying, "I wish they integrated with Dovetail in an easier way."

Based on monthly billing:

Compared to UserTesting, Sprig has a larger template gallery and more integrations with tools like Zendesk, Intercom, and Shopify. Its A/B testing capabilities are more useful for teams that prioritize speed and efficiency. However, UserTesting is a better choice if you want to run usability tests and access a large pool of participants.

The verdict: UserTesting’s pricing is aimed at enterprises and larger teams able to invest more. Sprig is more affordable, but offers less value than other tools. Maze is the best of both worlds. It’s more cost-effective than both tools, while also offering a large range of user research methods.

Trymata, formerly TryMyUI, offers unmoderated testing capabilities to capture a wide range of user interactions. It also supports quantitative and qualitative analysis. Trymata's tools make it easy to identify usability issues, optimize user journeys, and ensure that your products meet user expectations.

Many users mention limited tests and the unavailability of slots, which suggests a need for better management of test availability and user engagement. Roszaimy Y. says, "The prototypes often encounter errors such as unresponsive buttons and dead links." Other users comment on the platform's customer support, describing it as less than satisfactory.

Pricing based on monthly billing:

Both Trymata and UserTesting offer similar usability testing capabilities with test recruitment panel, screener, session videos and survey response data. However, TrymyUI does not offer card sorting or tree testing. While UserTesting boasts a rich feature suite including A/B testing, concept and prototype testing, and mobile app testing and validation.

In terms of pricing, with Trymata, you can buy additional credits at $45 each if you need more testers, which is a decent option as compared to UserTesting. It’s important to note that unlike Maze, neither TrymyUI or UserTesting have direct integrations with major design tools to test prototypes.

The verdict: Trymata is more transparent in its pricing and less expensive (based on user reviews) than UserTesting, but it offers limited user testing features for researchers. If you need a larger participant panel, and moderated and unmoderated testing with a variety of research methods, consider another tool on our list.

Userbrain is a user testing platform that focuses on usability testing. Similar to UserTesting and Maze, this platform enables teams to recruit and test participants on the same platform.

Once tests are completed, video recordings of the sessions, along with transcripts and automated insights, become available on the Userbrain dashboard. This feature helps product teams identify bugs, validate design choices, and gather user feedback efficiently across multiple devices, including phones and tablets.

Users appreciate the mobile app support for testing real app features without having to design and prototype an elaborate test. However, some users like Chris C. complain about the quality of tests and want an option to invite their own testers via a bulk or automated email invitation feature.

Userbrain offers a free plan, which allows you to run five tests per month. If you need access to more tests, Userbrain offers three paid plans, billed annually:

Userbrain focuses almost exclusively on unmoderated usability testing. It does not support other moderated research methods such as surveys, card sorting, or tree testing. This narrow approach makes it a fit for iterative usability feedback but not for more comprehensive research needs.
UserTesting on the other hand, offers advanced features like detailed demographic targeting, a larger tester pool, and in-depth analytics.

The verdict: These two tools are very similar, with Userbrain edging ahead due to its pricing being slightly more accessible for smaller teams. Both platforms offer participant recruitment and usability testing, but neither offers a comprehensive suite of testing methods. For a complete suite of user testing tools, consider another option.

Hotjar provides researchers and product teams with the tools needed to gather insights into user behavior. Hotjar is known for its heatmaps, session recordings, and feedback polls, which help you understand how users interact with your website in an unmoderated, real-world environment.

While users appreciate heatmaps and session recording features, some users like Ken W. want “more data visualization in the dashboard to help to further optimize landing pages.” Another user, Sidra A. shares that Hotjar’s session recordings are slow to load.

Hotjar offers four different packages with plans available at multiple price points, all billed annually:

Hotjar provides tools like heatmaps, session recordings, and surveys to track and analyze user behavior, making it ideal for website optimization and behavioral insights. However, it lacks moderated testing, participant recruitment, and prototype testing capabilities, which are core strengths of UserTesting. UserTesting supports both moderated and unmoderated testing for websites, mobile apps, and prototypes, offering deeper, interactive insights.

The verdict: Hotjar is more affordable than UserTesting, and provides a greater selection of solutions for teams focused on web-based insights like heatmaps and session recordings. However, if your focus is usability testing, stick with UserTesting or switch to a platform like Maze.

PlaybookUX focuses on moderated and unmoderated user research, with tools like card sorting and tree testing. Its main advantage is the pay-as-you-go pricing model, which offers budget-friendly options for teams without requiring long-term subscriptions. This makes it ideal for flexible, ad-hoc research needs.

Some users, like Karthikeyan P. express the need for in-tool charts for post-study analysis, like customer sentiment analysis. Another user Matt W. shares the need for an initial overview of how to use the platform when users first sign in.

PlaybookUX offers the following plans, billed annually:

PlaybookUX offers a more flexible pricing model with pay-as-you-go options, making it accessible for smaller teams and projects. UserTesting, on the other hand, boasts a larger participant pool and more robust analytics capabilities, with a focus on enterprise-level features and scalability for complex research needs.

The verdict: Choose PlaybookUX if you're a smaller team or new to user testing. However, if you need an enterprise-grade platform with a vast participant pool and advanced analytics capabilities, opt for UserTesting.

The tools listed above are all great alternatives to UserTesting, and provide a wide variation of research methods. Some tools are catered to enterprise teams, some are better suited to smaller teams, and others—like Maze—provide solutions for organizations of all sizes.

But, why might you want to try a UserTesting alternative? What pushes users to look for a substitute tool?

Typically, it’s the enterprise-level price point. UserTesting pricing (ranging between $20,000-$30,000 for an annual subscription) often excludes smaller and medium-sized businesses, leaving them looking for a more accessibly-priced tool.

Enterprise businesses that prioritize value may also be looking for an alternative—just because you can afford the price point, doesn’t mean it’s the best value tool.

Generally speaking, businesses are typically looking for a similar tool with comparable abilities, but one that:

All things considered, UserTesting could still be the solution for you. However, it’s important to note that UserTesting’s pricing can be complicated as it depends on the specific features and services you require. The plan starts at around $20-30k/year at its lowest price point. It depends on what you’re looking for, so consider:

There are plenty of other tools with everything you need to get incredible feedback without breaking the bank. For example, if you’re looking for the most similar option to UserTesting at a lower price, you could consider Optimal Workshop.

However, if you’re looking for a dedicated unmoderated platform with live website testing and multiple design tool integrations, then Maze is the right choice for you.

Maze is a comprehensive user research platform that enables product teams to collect insights at the speed of product development. With advanced reporting capabilities, an extensive list of features and use cases, Maze is the market's most effective solution for moderated and unmoderated testing.

The best bit? You can try Maze’s free-forever plan to find out if you like the platform before making your decision. No fees, no commitment, just a chance to find your way around the platform.

Don't believe us? Just check out these customer stories.