Screencastify vs. UserTesting

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Screencastify
Score 9.3 out of 10
N/A
Screencastify is a suite of video-creation tools for the classroom, from the company of the same name Chicago. It is used in K-12 classrooms around the world, for teachers and students, to create instructional videos, record presentations, and give better feedback, and to support remote learning.
$15
per month per user
UserTesting
Score 8.0 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
Pricing
ScreencastifyUserTesting
Editions & Modules
Starter
$15
per month per user
Pro
$20
per month per user
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
ScreencastifyUserTesting
Free Trial
YesYes
Free/Freemium Version
YesNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional DetailsDiscount available for annual pricing.
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
ScreencastifyUserTesting
Considered Both Products
Screencastify
Chose Screencastify
Loom and Screencastify are the most direct comparison. They both are Chrome extensions that have a low learning curve for beginner users. Loom offers a pro license free to educators, which allows for unlimited numbers of recordings and a 45-minute cap on recording length, …
UserTesting
Chose UserTesting
UserTesting is probably the most polished with the largest tester pool, fastest turnaround, and great tools for both moderated and unmoderated tests.
Userlytics is a solid alternative, especially for the budget-conscious. It supports usability testing on lots of devices, and …
Chose UserTesting
The business chose the platform, but I am not too sure.
Chose UserTesting
We use both UserTesting and Userlytics in conjunction with each other. Userlytics we find to be stronger with 1-2-1 moderated study set up due to it being really simple and intuitive for both the researcher and the participant to use. Userlytics also utilises AI analysis of …
Chose UserTesting
UserTesting has the best unmoderated interview set up and it's easy for participants to use as well.
Chose UserTesting
UserTesting is very much a usability testing tool. dscout has much more robust functionality and feels like a more complete user research tool, and I prefer the quality of the panel. However, the UserTesting panel is much larger, and works well when you have lower barriers to …
Chose UserTesting
Because Maze has more limited feature set and basic analytics.
Chose UserTesting
UserTesting is far more advanced than Userbob. It allows a lot more flexibility in the type of testing we run and specifically how we gather respondents to this.

Most tests are unmoderated, similar to Maze, which I would suggest is the most comparable in platform. I find …
Chose UserTesting
Content square is great for seeing customer insights, but UserTesting cuts straight to the point
Chose UserTesting
UserTesting is not a one-size-fits-all approach, but it excels in certain areas. Its user-friendly UI and speedy test launch make it excellent for companies that require immediate user feedback. Budget-conscious firms may find UserTesting's cost-effectiveness appealing, …
Chose UserTesting
Userlytics was evaluated before but coverage of services was less as compare to UserTesting.
Chose UserTesting
They all have different needs but we used the others to try and do what we wanted before we switched to UserTesting. we wanted to utilize as much of our audience as possible before but we noticed that people who had familiarity with our products would breeze through the testing.
Chose UserTesting
I used Lookback at a previous organization. Overall, UT is more usable for participants, and the built-in participant pool is a standout feature.
Chose UserTesting
UserTesting is better than Hotjar interviews; its tools for creating unmoderated tests and analyzing feedback are superior.
Chose UserTesting
UserTesting is easier to use, and the site's design is user-friendly. There are no glitches, and the site works without crashes or slow loading.
Chose UserTesting
This is the only comparable platform I've used.
Chose UserTesting
I prefer Maze as it is much more intuitive.
Chose UserTesting
The quality of the participants: they usually have good feedback and act like "professional" users. Which is good when we want a few insights in a short amount of time.
Also, the interface is good. I miss having more features, like a good transcription tool like we have in …
Chose UserTesting
As we have a bigger UX team, it helps us make user research a team sport. It helps us scale and speed up learning without creating bottlenecks which might happen if we were to use smaller tools and platforms.
Chose UserTesting
In terms of overall cost and value, UserTesting stacks up well. While the platform's overall usability could be improved, and it lacks certain features that other platforms offer, we could not find a better platform for quick, reliable insights in a recent comparison.
Chose UserTesting
I've used dscout, and although I prefer UserTesting.com, I will say that dscout really excels at the diary study format. It would be great if UserTesting had a tool/tools that facilitated diary studies better.
Chose UserTesting
UserTesting's platform is the most comprehensive. While it may not have the best analytics features, survey features, recruitment features, etc, it has everything you need to run evaluative and generative research.
Chose UserTesting
User interviews, like the name mentions, is highly focused on exactly that. The issue with this platform is that for any other type of testing you need to purchase third party integrations. This ends up costing more and gets complicated. I do enjoy the tool for what it is but …
Chose UserTesting
UserTesting is superior because of their vast panel, speed, and intuitiveness.
Best Alternatives
ScreencastifyUserTesting
Small Businesses
Sendspark
Sendspark
Score 10.0 out of 10
Smartlook
Smartlook
Score 8.2 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
Snagit
Snagit
Score 9.3 out of 10
Optimal
Optimal
Score 9.0 out of 10
Enterprises
Snagit
Snagit
Score 9.3 out of 10
Optimal
Optimal
Score 9.0 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
ScreencastifyUserTesting
Likelihood to Recommend
10.0
(0 ratings)
8.2
(0 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
-
(0 ratings)
8.1
(0 ratings)
Usability
-
(0 ratings)
8.1
(0 ratings)
Availability
-
(0 ratings)
9.1
(0 ratings)
Performance
-
(0 ratings)
9.1
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
-
(0 ratings)
8.3
(0 ratings)
Implementation Rating
-
(0 ratings)
4.6
(0 ratings)
Configurability
-
(0 ratings)
7.3
(0 ratings)
Product Scalability
-
(0 ratings)
7.3
(0 ratings)
Vendor post-sale
-
(0 ratings)
9.1
(0 ratings)
Vendor pre-sale
-
(0 ratings)
9.1
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
ScreencastifyUserTesting
Likelihood to Recommend
Screencastify is great for beginning video creators or teachers who need a tool to quickly record a screen. For those with a budget, the paid features offers basic editing and the ability to embed questions, which can make for a more polished and meaningful video. Screencastify is not for users who want to create a more polished video with an introduction or other media that needs to be included, such as background music or other images. My go to - if it's quick and easy, use Screencastify. If I want to make in-depth edits, use another solution.
Read full review
When working with general market customers. For example, a person between the ages of 30 and 60 who has a checking account and a mortgage with their primary bank, as long as they don't get too specific about a particular bank.
Read full review
Pros
  • Easy screencasting
  • Stores videos to the cloud/drive
  • Basic editing, such as trimming
  • Chrome extension is easy to install and use
Read full review
  • Product Manager who follows up on your UserTesting usage and gives advice/support when you need it.
  • UserTesting University is a great platform to learn how to use UT and general information about research.
  • UserTesting can find participants quickly, so you won't need to wait long before you can start the analysis.
Read full review
Cons
  • The pricing model isn't competitive in Education
  • 5-minute cap on free videos can be short
Read full review
  • A centralized platform to recommend products and use cases would be handy so that users can suggest what they could use more of.
  • Integration with newer payment methods and gift card services could expand the user base.
  • Some products are business-critical and thus require sophisticated testing. This service could be added.
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
No answers on this topic
I'm actually trying to get a license for my current job at my current company (recently moved to a new company). I gave it this rating because I am about to go to our executive to ask that we purchase it! I know that there will be value because we are forecasting a high volume of research next year
Read full review
Usability
No answers on this topic
It can be difficult to organize our tests and go back and find information. I think the AI tools are helping and will help with this, but for now it is time consuming to sort through all of the tests and information and then synthesize it and share it with others. It just takes a lot of time.
Read full review
Reliability and Availability
No answers on this topic
Never encountered any problems
Read full review
Performance
No answers on this topic
Perfectly fine. Never had any problems.
Read full review
Support Rating
No answers on this topic
I've used the "power hour," as I think it's called. This really helped me gain a greater understanding of my specific needs and wants from the platform. This excellent service points to the excellent relationship UserTesting provides its clients. I would recommend this service to any of my colleagues.
Read full review
Implementation Rating
No answers on this topic
From a technical perspective, the implementation was extremely smooth. Most of the change management / implementation hurdles were clearing use of the tool through our various security, legal, and information privacy teams. Once these concerns were addressed (UserTesting.com was very helpful in providing all the needed documentation), the implementation process was very simple and we were able to get going right away.
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
Loom and Screencastify are the most direct comparison. They both are Chrome extensions that have a low learning curve for beginner users. Loom offers a pro license free to educators, which allows for unlimited numbers of recordings and a 45-minute cap on recording length, perfect for lessons. Screencastify's pro features are paid for but are also more in-depth. Their editing is more robust, allowing users to trim in the middle, not just the edges. Users also get unlimited recordings and no cap on video length, and some storage depending on the tier purchased. Screencastify also offers volume discounts, which can help reduce the cost significantly. Educators can also create assignments in Screencastify, which is unique to this product. Camtasia is a full-fledged editor and screen recorder, so a full comparison isn't fair, since the products have two different intended uses. Camtasia offers robust features to make a polished final video
Read full review
UserTesting is probably the most polished with the largest tester pool, fastest turnaround, and great tools for both moderated and unmoderated tests. Userlytics is a solid alternative, especially for the budget-conscious. It supports usability testing on lots of devices, and you can do both moderated and unmoderated sessions. The UI isn’t as seamless as UserTesting’s, but it gets the job done and it's pretty flexible in terms of study setup and participant targeting.
Trymata is the most basic, but it’s relatively straightforward and affordable. You still get session recordings and written responses, but lacks dashboard polish or advanced features. It’s great for smaller teams or one-off tests.
Read full review
Scalability
No answers on this topic
The package we have limits the number of people who can set up tests. This prevents us from scaling the use of the platform.
Read full review
Return on Investment
  • 150 users
  • Many hours of screen recording made
  • Many of users can use the free verison with no issue
Read full review
  • We can build tests and gather the insights from those tests to validate our products at a breakneck pace.
  • By quickly validating our assumptions, we can adjust or refine our designs to ensure the final results are more user-focused.
  • Recently, by testing and comparing two different flows for a form, we were able to create the right solution that gave us better leads compared to the former form. This results in better leads, better data about the user, and better support at the end for this user.
Read full review
ScreenShots

UserTesting Screenshots

Screenshot of UserTesting's several solutions for gathering rich customer experience narratives.Screenshot of Interactive Path Flows
Built on recent research in data mining, the Interactive Path Flow aggregates interaction data across multiple participant sessions to visualize the customer journey, surface unexpected behaviors, and locate key moments in the customer journey.Screenshot of Keyword Mapping
Similar keywords are automatically grouped based on overall sentiment (positive, negative, or neutral) to identify themes. Highlight reels associated with each keyword are grouped together, to discover the why behind each sentiment.Screenshot of Video capture and live streaming
Digital and real-world customer experiences are recorded on desktop and mobile devices or live streamed for in-platform viewing.Screenshot of Audience targeting
Audiences are specified by screening contributors from UserTesting’s global network of contributors or connecting to any preferred network.