10 Best-rated UserTesting alternatives & competitors in 2024

User research is an essential step in the product development process, and there’s many ways to go about it. One UX research tool is UserTesting—but it’s by no means the only way. If you’re looking for a tool to uncover authentic user insights, but don’t have a large budget, you’re in the right place.

To help assess your options, we’ve compiled a list of seven alternatives to UserTesting. They have all the features you love, like running usability testing and collecting user feedback to inform product decisions. We’ll introduce you to each solution’s pros and cons, and see how each one compares in terms of pricing.

Every business has different needs, but you’re sure to find a solution that suits you here.

There’s a lot to consider when looking at UserTesting alternatives. To make the decision easier, we’ve broken each tool down into bitesized, comparable sections to help you make the right decision for your business. Here’s the shortlist:

Maze is the leading user research platform that integrates both qualitative and quantitative research methods. It supports moderated and unmoderated testing and enables mixed-method studies. Maze allows product teams to quickly test anything—from prototypes to copy—and collect actionable insights, enabling product teams to gain user insights at the speed of product development.

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

Maze doesn’t currently provide built-in capabilities for hosting live moderated testing sessions directly within its platform. However, Interview Studies provides a comprehensive moderated analysis tool, and Clips lets you have a deeper insight into your testers’ pain points, feelings, and processes, without needing the additional resources for a facilitator to be present. You can use Maze along with any video conferencing tools to moderate your sessions.

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 focuses on qualitative, moderated testing, allowing your team to host research calls and organize the data live. Lookback also helps product teams work collaboratively, with the ability to have multiple people from your team join the call, chat, and highlight comments—without interrupting the conversation with participants. This tool is mostly for moderated research interviews and usability testing, but does offer some unmoderated functionality.

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:

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, several reviewers note the lack of audio and video capabilities during prototype testing, which limits your ability to capture users' thought processes in-the-moment.

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.

Price per test varies accordingly:

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 pay-as-you-go plan. We experimented with the sliders on their pricing options 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."

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.

Trymata offers different plans tailored to various needs:

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.

The ten tools listed above are 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 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 probably looking for a similar tool with comparable abilities, but one that:

Consider an alternative UX research tool that:

UserTesting’s platform comes at a high cost. UserTesting doesn’t publish prices on its website, but in 2023, users reported prices starting at $30,000 per seat/year, making it out of reach in terms of price for many businesses.

While UserTesting offers unmoderated and quantitative tests, it’s more tailored to a moderated and qualitative approach. If you’re looking for a tool that lets you test anything from an idea to a live website in an unmoderated way, there are other better options available.

Since UserTesting is mostly focused on hosting moderated tests, you need to factor in additional time to extract and organize data for reporting. Meanwhile, other tools automatically process insights and produce a downloadable PDF with a summary of all your relevant quantitative results.

Users also complain about UserTesting’s UX, saying it’s not intuitive enough. This might be a problem you’ve experienced yourself. Either way, you need a tool that everyone on your team can use—regardless of technical skills, who’s doing the research, and how often.

UserTesting only integrates with AdobeXD, so testing features or prototypes gets a bit more complicated. Other tools like Maze can directly integrate with Figma, the industry's biggest design tool, and other tools like Invision, Marvel, and Sketch.

UserTesting is a powerful user testing platform but are you its intended audience? This platform is most suited to enterprises or businesses with big product teams (20+) and designated researchers. But, while UserTesting can support large teams, it doesn’t let you have projects with shared ownership. This means that the owner is the only one able to conduct the studies on the tool, making it difficult to collaborate. The team for this tool needs to have a sizable budget to cover the cost of multiple licenses and resources to teach the tool to team members.

Now we’ve covered seven different alternatives to UserTesting, you can go forward and make an informed decision about which tool best suits your research needs. If you’re still unsure, here are four things to consider before committing to your next user testing tool.

Determine the type of insights you need from a user research tool before you settle on a platform. While UserTesting can run unmoderated tests with quantitative metrics, it’s mostly focused on moderated, qualitative answers.

So, if you need to run usability, prototype, or five-second tests in an unbiased, data-driven environment, you should consider a tool like Maze. With the best product decisions being informed by a mix of both quantitative and qualitative insights, Maze enables you to use mixed methods like heatmaps, card sorting, surveys, and live website testing. You can also run moderated user interviews on Maze, with AI-powered analysis for faster insight collection.

When selecting your research tool, you want to consider how easy the set-up is, how intuitive the product is (for your product team and the participants), and how quickly it will get you results. Look for a tool that:

Options that fit these criteria are: Maze, Optimal Workshop, and Trymata (formerly TryMyUI).

One of UserTesting’s biggest downsides is that people find it too expensive, especially if they have a team of over 10 people doing research. You need a tool that’ll grow with you and enable your team to scale research, without becoming unaffordable. Consider the options that offer unlimited tests or seats per plan like Maze or Userfeel.

User research helps you improve your user experience, but it also allows you to reduce development costs, identify issues early on, and fuel product decisions with real user data. To do this, you need to be able to test real products with live testing, and access prototype integration. So it’s worth looking for an alternative to UserTesting that allows live website testing and the ability to test clickable prototypes from Figma, AdobeXD, InVision, or Sketch. Options that do this are Maze, Lyssna and Loop11.

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 $30k/year at its lowest price point. It depends on what you’re looking for, but if you’re interested in quality user testing at an affordable price—we’ve got some good news for you.

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. This platform allows you to run all types of tests and use their panel to answer your questions.

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 continuous product discovery platform that simplifies product research for people who do research and powers product decisions with user feedback. Plus, Maze comes with advanced reporting capabilities and the ability to record users’ audio and video. It’s one of the best value solutions in the market—enabling teams to conduct both moderated and unmoderated testing quickly and easily.