13 UserTesting alternatives for faster, scalable UX research

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.

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

UserTesting has long been a familiar name in UX research, but teams often complain about:

These issues make it harder to get fast, reliable insights that match the speed of modern product development.

UserTesting’s pricing is a frequent reason teams look for alternatives. Due to UserTesting’s per-seat pricing model, costs can add up quickly—making it an unsustainable user research solution for many teams, as it limits research operations and democratization.

“The biggest downside is the cost, as the per-subject costs seem reasonable, but the per-seat licenses do not seem reasonable.” – Corey S., Enterprise Founder

Alongside this, users also complain about additional costs for more evolved research operations and needs. This is due to how features are packaged:

Moving from Advanced to Ultimate to Ultimate+ incurs costs that teams aren’t always prepared for—leaving them with a difficult decision: increase spending or limit research capabilities. Plus, users note that taking this step can be a difficult and time-consuming process.

“It's so hard to get a license! Negotiation takes forever, especially now with their new "session units" policy that makes me feel like I'm buying micropayments on a freemium app. If I had an alternative, I'd switch just because they're so hard to do business with.” – Verified Enterprise User

Alongside cost, users also find that UserTesting’s performance leaves a lot to be desired. While it offers a variety of research methods (but not all research methods), users observe that they often prioritize quantity over quality.

“It seems that they continue to just add more new products to their roadmap before fine tuning the existing products. For example, in the unmoderated features, there is no way to randomly present more than 2 different prototypes. You can only counter balance with two.” – Verified Enterprise User in Financial Services

Reviewers also mention that UserTesting’s own user experience isn’t ideal, with one user calling it a “powerful tool that would benefit from its own purpose." The user, a Senior UX Designer, goes on to explain that “it can be difficult to know where to find tools, there are inconsistencies in test organization/folder structure, and some features are just buried behind a 'clean' UI.”

Beyond the tester’s experience, users also report issues for participant testers, such as “different bugs (that) occur during the recordings.” Not ideal when you need insights fast.

While UserTesting offers a large tester pool, multiple reviewers say the quality isn’t consistent. Some participants rush through studies, give shallow feedback, or aren’t genuine profiles.

“One downside is the quality of participants at times. There are professional test takers and bots trying to simply make money.” — Lucas L., Enterprise User

Poor-quality feedback wastes both time and paid credits, especially when every unusable session adds to overall project costs. That being said, users do report that “UT has great functionality built-in to alleviate these situations to replace a tester at no cost or fix the issue.” However, that doesn’t make up for the lost time and effort required to get in touch and restart studies.

Now that we know why so many UserTesting customers consider switching, let’s look at the best alternatives that can help you run research faster, automate analysis, and scale insights across your whole product team.

Here’s a quick overview of the best UserTesting alternatives:

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.

With Maze AI, researchers can automate key parts of the research and testing process, like summarizing qualitative feedback, identifying themes, and generating follow-up questions. Maze’s AI moderator can automatically build discussion guides, conduct real-time interviews across time zones, and deliver structured insights you can trace, edit, and trust.

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, Notion, Slack, and more. Plus, you can test next-gen AI prototypes built with tools like Figma Make, Lovable, and Bolt, capturing how real users interact with AI-generated designs before you invest in development.

Maze customers highlight the platform’s speed, collaboration, and cost efficiency as the biggest advantages.

Maria C., a Product Designer shares, “Maze is easy to use, with a variety of testing types. I love the Figma connection and the AI follow-up questions, it helps organize answers clearly.” Some reviewers also point to areas that could improve. Marledvuka L., a Field Operations Manager, notes limitations on the free plan. He says, “Maze helps us validate ideas quickly, but the free plan lacks the intensive testing capabilities we sometimes need.”

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

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.

When comparing UserTesting to Maze, there are some key differences to consider between the two tools:

Lookback is a user research platform that places a stronger emphasis on qualitative research methods and in-depth user interviews. Teams can host moderated or unmoderated sessions, collaborate through a live 'observer lobby,' and take time-stamped notes while watching participants interact with prototypes or products. Its Eureka AI features speed up analysis with automatic transcripts, highlights, and summarized insights.

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.

Julian, a UX Consultant in the UK, says, “It’s good for moderated usability testing, allowing full screen (and face) recording of users as they explore sites. The tools for taking notes are good, with timestamps and allowing additional viewers from our team to make notes as sessions take place.”

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 pricing plans are billed annually and come with five free research sessions:

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 testing tool for helping research teams design and validate information architecture with card sorting and tree testing. Beyond IA, it also supports first-click testing, surveys, and qualitative analysis to capture user behavior, attitudes, and insights across the discovery process. However, since its main strength is IA and early testing, teams looking for broader research methods like live website testing, advanced prototyping, or deep tool integrations, may need to pair it with other UX platforms.

Users often describe Optimal Workshop as easy to use and dependable for card sorting, tree testing, and early usability studies. Ines K., a Lead Product Designer, appreciates the platform’s simplicity, saying, “The survey and card sorting tools are easy to set up, and the platform keeps improving. The only drawback is the analytics. I often need to export data for deeper analysis.”

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. If your product team has over 15-20 seats, or you’re looking for more nuanced prototype feedback, try a solution like Maze to increase the quality of reports and insights.

Lyssna is a quick, easy-to-use UX research platform built for teams that need to validate designs and concepts fast. It supports moderated and unmoderated tests, including first-click, five-second, preference, prototype, and card sorting studies, all accessible through simple templates.

Lyssna users highlight its simplicity and speed as major strengths. Amanda D., an Associate Creative Director, described it as “so darn intuitive to use” and appreciated the built-in templates that make it easy to run studies without much setup.

But not everyone finds Lyssna perfect. Aileen M., a UX Research Consultant, said it’s “comparable to more powerful tools, just shy on some functionalities,” pointing out missing logic controls and limited screener flexibility. Similarly, Jamie L., a UX Designer, mentioned frustration over losing work when her browser timed out, wishing for an autosave feature.

The verdict: Lyssna is much more affordable than UserTesting. Both support moderated and unmoderated research, but Lyssna focuses on quick, template-based tests and faster feedback. It’s the better choice for lean teams needing affordable, fast validation, but consider other alternatives on our list for running in-depth, video-led studies.

Loop 11 supports both moderated and unmoderated studies, capturing screen, audio, and video recordings so teams can analyze user behavior in context. You can run tests across desktop, web, iOS, and Android. You can also bring your own participants or recruit through Loop11’s panel, making it flexible for internal and external testing. However, Loop11 focuses mainly on task-based testing, meaning it doesn’t include IA methods like card sorting or tree testing, and its survey logic is more limited than some all-in-one UX suites like Maze.

Many reviewers see Loop11 as a simple tool for quick usability testing. Akhil H., a small-business user, praised its simplicity, saying “Loop11 is very easy to use with its in-built AI project creator, which sets up detailed tasks and activities in seconds.”

But not all feedback is glowing. Judith E., an Organizational Economist, described it as “a cumbersome tool with limited features,” citing weak accessibility and responsiveness testing and calling its pricing “not reasonable.” Similarly, Anno C., a Small-Business Manager, found the platform “frustrating to integrate for effortless testing,” pointing out lag and limited customization options.

Loop11 offers three main pricing models, all with a 14-day free trial:

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, another tool on this list might be a better choice.

Userfeel runs on a pay-as-you-go model for unmoderated or moderated studies; no annual subscription. You can test websites, apps, and digital products, recruit from Userfeel’s global participant panel, or bring your own participants. Each session includes screen and voice recordings, session metrics, and real-time insights for quick decision-making.

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.

Userfeel runs on a pay-as-you-go model at $60 per credit. All plans include unlimited screener questions, demographics, and team members.

The verdict: Pick Userfeel if you’re not testing your platform frequently and want flexible, pay-as-you-go pricing. 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 doesn’t share public pricing. Plans are custom and typically structured as annual subscriptions with seats, activity credits, and optional research services.

Third-party benchmarks suggest contracts average around $50,000 per year, with ranges from $25,000 to $100,000+, depending on usage, support, and team size. For smaller projects, one-off studies start at roughly $3,000.

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."

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.

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 2M+ 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.

Most reviewers highlight Userlytics’ ease of use and fast turnaround. Erica M., Marketplace Operations Coordinator, said the platform “made setup simple, even for a first-time user, and delivered valuable insights we could act on immediately.”

However, Rick R., Digital Merchandising Manager, mentioned that “poor video and audio quality sometimes makes it hard to understand participants.” Similarly, Russ B., UX Director, noted that “requiring users to download software before joining sessions isn’t ideal and can slow down testing.”

**The verdict: **Choose Userlytics if you want to run both unmoderated and moderated testing from one platform. If you want a tool that enables you to manage your own participants in a native database, consider another tool 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.

Zina A., a UX Researcher, pointed out that “question skip logic needs debugging as it resets while the survey is running,” while another reviewer in financial services noted that “reporting dashboards are good for high-level patterns but too light for deeper qualitative analysis.”

Sprig no longer lists pricing publicly on its website. However, historical data from 2024 indicates the following tiers:

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:

The verdict: Trymata is more transparent in its pricing and less expensive than UserTesting. Plus, with Trymata, you can buy additional credits at $45 each if you need more testers, which is a decent option compared to UserTesting, where add-on sessions and seat-based licenses are bundled into custom annual contracts that often exceed ~$40,000/year.

It’s important to note that unlike Maze, neither Trymata or UserTesting have direct integrations with major design tools to test prototypes. 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.

It’s worth noting that Userbrain has only about 15 reviews on G2, which makes its public feedback base relatively small and may not fully represent the platform’s current performance or feature maturity.

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.

The verdict: These two tools are very similar, with Userbrain edging ahead due to its pricing being slightly more accessible for smaller teams.

Hotjar is built for unmoderated, always-on behavior analytics (desktop, tablet, and mobile web) on live websites. It’s best known for visual behavior tracking through heatmaps, session replays, in-page feedback, and surveys, helping UX and product teams quickly spot where users click, scroll, hesitate, or abandon.

While users appreciate heatmaps and session recording features, some users like Gabor F., a Marketing Manager, note that “session recording limits can be restrictive, and filtering data could be smoother.” Shobhit A., a Technology Director, adds that “recordings can slow down page load speed and pricing gets high with scale.”

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, it lacks moderated testing, participant recruitment, and prototype testing capabilities, which are core strengths of UserTesting.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. The platform also comes with built-in participant recruiting, video transcripts, and Figma prototype analytics. Its AI tools summarize transcripts, flag UX issues, draft screeners, and generate executive reports with next-step suggestions.

Most public reviews of PlaybookUX date back to 2023, which makes it difficult to assess how the platform performs today.

Earlier 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.

Overall, PlaybookUX appeared promising but somewhat under-developed, and without current reviews, it’s difficult to confirm whether these issues have been addressed.

The verdict: PlaybookUX offers a more flexible pricing model with pay-as-you-go options, making it accessible for smaller teams and projects. 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 another solution on our list.

There are plenty of UserTesting alternatives with everything you need to get incredible feedback without breaking the bank. For example, you can try Optimal Workshop for IA research, Dscout for diary-based research, or Hotjar and Sprig for gathering user feedback directly within your product.

However, if you’re looking for an end-to-end user research platform 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. Beyond moderated and unmoderated testing, it offers AI-driven analysis and reporting, prototype testing with Figma Make, Loveable, and Bolt, mobile app and responsive testing, card sorting, tree testing, and survey tools, all in one workspace

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 (and your users!).