| Product | Rating | Most Used By | Product Summary | Starting Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Optimal | Score9 out of 10 | N/A | Optimal Workshop, a company in New Zealand, offers their suite of user research tools on a subscription basis, including the Treejack information architecture tool, OptimalSort card sorting test, Chalkmark first-click testing, and other tools. | $2,388 per year |
 UserTesting | Score8 out of 10 | N/A | UserTesting helps UX researchers, designers, product teams, and marketers gather actionable insights through research, testing, and feedback. With a network of real people ready to share their perspectives, UserTesting enables organizations to make customer-first decisions at scale. | N/A |
| Optimal | UserTesting | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Editions & Modules |
| No answers on this topic | ||||||||||||||
| Offerings |
| |||||||||||||||
| Entry-level Setup Fee | No setup fee | No setup fee | ||||||||||||||
| Additional Details | — | — | ||||||||||||||
| More Pricing Information | ||||||||||||||||
| Optimal | UserTesting | |
|---|---|---|
| Considered Both Products | | Chose UserTesting We have evaluated other tools including Validately, Loop11, LookBack, UserZoom. Some have more features and capabilities, but UserTesting seems to have the best user panel. It is also hard to switch from a tool, as you lose all the data that lives within the tool. For now we … Invited by TrustRadius (TR) on Vendor's Behalf A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info Chose UserTesting We also explored UserZoom but our team found it much more difficult to use. It was not intuitive at all and we had to have a lot of help and support from their team. Additionally, UserZoom was about five times more expensive than UserTesting. Invited by TrustRadius (TR) on Vendor's Behalf A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info Chose UserTesting All the tools we had evaluated before purchasing had similar features but the one thing that set UserTesting apart from the rest was the size and reach of their user base. We needed to reach global audiences and at the time of our choice, only UserTesting was able to reach a … Invited by TrustRadius (TR) on Vendor's Behalf A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info Chose UserTesting The users are much better at UserTesting. They are thoughtful and give good insight. Invited by the Vendor A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info |
| Key User Insights | ||
| Would buy again | ||
No answers on this topic | No answers on this topic | |
| Delivers good value for the price | ||
No answers on this topic | No answers on this topic | |
| Happy with the feature set | ||
No answers on this topic | No answers on this topic | |
| Lived up to sales and marketing promises | ||
No answers on this topic | No answers on this topic | |
| Implementation went as expected | ||
No answers on this topic | No answers on this topic | |
| Optimal | UserTesting | |
|---|---|---|
| Likelihood to Recommend | 9.0 | 8.1 |
| Likelihood to Renew | - | 8.3 |
| Usability | 8.0 | 8.1 |
| Availability | - | 9.1 |
| Performance | - | 9.1 |
| Support Rating | 8.9 | 8.3 |
| Implementation Rating | - | 4.6 |
| Configurability | - | 7.3 |
| Product Scalability | - | 7.3 |
| Vendor post-sale | - | 9.1 |
| Vendor pre-sale | - | 9.1 |
