Lyssna (formerly UsabilityHub) is a user research platform used to test digital products with real users and gain insights into their audience. Its tools and features help Lyssna to optimize users' designs and create more engaging user-friendly experiences. Lyssna is a research platform, offering a broad range of testing features including: Five Second Testing - Used to quickly test the effectiveness of landing pages, messaging and designs by showing users a…
$0
3 seats included
Userlytics
Score 8.0 out of 10
N/A
Userlytics headquartered in San Francisco provides their suite of usablity testing tools for UI or website developers (or deliverers of similar digital assets) on a pay-as-you-go / per participant basis, or a subscription basis.
N/A
Pricing
Lyssna
Userlytics
Editions & Modules
Free
$0
3 seats included
Basic
$89
per month 3 seats included, maximum 10 seats
Pro
$199
per month 3 seats included, maximum 15 seats
Enterprise
Contact Sales
custom seats
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Lyssna
Userlytics
Free Trial
Yes
Yes
Free/Freemium Version
Yes
Yes
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
Discount available for annual plan. Panel responses are priced seperately.
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Lyssna
Userlytics
Considered Both Products
Lyssna
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose Lyssna
Lyssna is certainly the least expensive, most basic and easy to use out of the range of usability tools I have used in the past. Depending on your maturity as a business and the projects that you are doing, this can be a great starting point before scaling up.
Maze has a more comprehensive reporting presentation compared to Usabilityhub. Maze's interface is clean and modern but it lacks a simple intuitive testing set found in UsabilityHub. The terminology of a maze is slightly confusing, flow tests are integrated with only Figma, Xd, …
I've not found any other tools as good as UsabilityHub. I've experienced some tools that have some similar functionalities, but they don't let you add multiple formats of questions in one test (as far as I'm aware.)
Like UsabilityHub, VWO is a testing platform but it tests against a site's users, not a set pool of testers. There is more flexibility for testing with VWO as you could use a WYSIWIG/edit HTML/CSS to make changes to a live site vs. UsabilityHub where'd you have to upload image …
UsabilityHub provides very fast, short responses to specific questions about a static image of a website. This is useful for checking what is most prominent on a page, what they would click on, what they see/read within the first 5 seconds of landing etc. WhatUsersDo is a …
Userlytics can be a good alternate in terms of price point and has a better integration of apps like invision which helps. Mobile recording needs to be improved. Nowadays, competitors are way better in terms of functionality comparision.
We used WhatUsersDo. However, the tool currently got bought out by a bigger company and were removing the remote research tool. We chose to use Userlytics as it stacked up well against competitors.
I think it's well suited to any scenario where something requires feedback, whether it's exploratory feedback of current designs or validation that a new design solves a problem & additional feedback can be gathered to make it even better. I'd recommend UsabilityHub to anybody who isn't 100% sure on a design, and if they are, they need to use it to confirm that certainty.
It is an excellent resource for user testing, especially when it comes to using the Userlytics user panel. I would love to see them add a recruiting part and communication with potential users, in case we need to bring our own panel.
On Userlytics it is easy to set up test and the required tasks.
Userlytics offer you transcription services, which can save a lot of time; rather than watch and transcribe the full video yourself, they can do this for you.
You can request to recruit particular people, with options like device, country and the use of prescreening questions.
Due to its simplicity and design it is really easy to navigate. You can clearly understand which sections you have completed and which are still left to be done. It is also really easy to change ordering of content etc, which I have found hasn’t been an option in other tools which means it is a really lengthy task of rewriting all of the tasks or questions to get them in the correct order that is desired.
I think it's very user friendly. I think it gives you a chance to get a feel for websites you may not previously have experience with nor have otherwise experienced. It's also a great way to give input and help shape functionality of business you may enjoy or have further interest in
Maze has a more comprehensive reporting presentation compared to Usabilityhub. Maze's interface is clean and modern but it lacks a simple intuitive testing set found in UsabilityHub. The terminology of a Maze is slightly confusing, flow tests are integrated with only Figma, Xd, Invision, Sketch, and Marvel prototypes. The final test interface shown to users is confusing and could have been simpler like UsabilityHub.
We used WhatUsersDo. However, the tool currently got bought out by a bigger company and were removing the remote research tool. We chose to use Userlytics as it stacked up well against competitors.