Skip to content

UserTesting alternatives

Last reviewed . Reviewed every quarter.

UserTesting alternatives in brief

  • Of the four alternatives here, Maze and Entropik are usability platforms in UserTesting's own category, and Outset and Listen Labs are AI interviewers that also run UX sessions.
  • The reviews quoted above raise participants who game a session, collaboration in larger teams and reaching audiences with narrow criteria.
  • UserTesting's simple tests begin to return results in as little as 1 hour, and Maze Panel averages under 5 hours on unmoderated tests. Listen Labs quotes insights in 24 hours, Entropik structured insights in 48, and Outset interviews within hours. A Pulse study can run overnight.

Why teams look for an alternative to UserTesting

Occasionally we'll get a few participants who try to speed through and game the system by giving false responses to earn the incentive.

James H., verified reviewer, Consumer Goods, 201-500 employees (Software Advice)James H., verified reviewer, Consumer Goods, 201-500 employees (Software Advice),

One thing that sticks out to me is that there could be some improvements in terms of the collaboration between larger teams.

Jonathan S., verified reviewer, Oil & Energy, 1001-5000 employees (Software Advice)Jonathan S., verified reviewer, Oil & Energy, 1001-5000 employees (Software Advice),

Sometimes as a company you need more users that fit specific criteria, you have to reach into new wider audiences to receive more users.

Kyle B., verified reviewer, Internet (Software Advice)Kyle B., verified reviewer, Internet (Software Advice),

UserTesting alternatives side by side

UserTesting alternatives side by side
PulseMazeEntropikOutsetListen Labs
AI-moderated interviewsYesYesYesYesYes
Dynamic follow-up / probingYesYesYesYesYes
Languages (count/list)240+ languages, enabled on requestYesAI Moderator (Mira): 70+ languages40+ languages120+ languages (home page figure)
Own panel (size)YesPartlyNot checkedPartlyYes
Theme / insight synthesisYesYesYesYesYes
Free trial / free tierYesYesYesNot checkedNot checked

The alternatives, one by one

Pulse

Best for UX and product teams that learn from interviews at scale

With Pulse, the AI-moderated research platform, a UX team holds its interviews and its task-based usability testing in one place. Every interview's recording comes with a full transcript, and themes are grouped by what participants said, with the quotes behind each.

Strengths

  • Participant incentives handled
  • Questions asked of the results
  • Fraud checks on every participant

Verdict UserTesting's Blur Tool conceals names, logins and addresses in recordings. Pulse redacts personal data from its interview transcripts, for a UX team that shares those transcripts beyond the research group.

Where another tool fits A design review that turns on where participants' eyes went is better served by Entropik, whose live moderated sessions track eye gaze. Pulse suits teams asking users why, in interviews that follow up a vague answer.

Maze

Best for Designers testing prototypes from Figma, Figma Make, Lovable or Bolt

Maze reports usability metrics for each prototype test, along with heatmaps, the paths people take and their misclicks. For sessions a researcher moderates, its Interview Studies come with conferencing and AI-powered transcription built in.

Strengths

  • Maze Panel recruitment across 150+ countries
  • Automated reports shareable with stakeholders
  • Speeder and attention checks on participants

Verdict Maze publishes its Free plan and its panel credit rates, so a team can budget a panel study before speaking to sales. UserTesting quotes each plan through its account team, and Entropik publishes a free plan as well.

Pulse vs Maze

Entropik

Best for UX teams that run surveys alongside AI-moderated interviews

Entropik's platform covers usability testing moderated, unmoderated and task-based, with concept and prototype testing beside it. Its AI Moderator, Mira, can press further on an answer or put a question in plainer terms, and reports build themselves once the sessions are in.

Strengths

  • Sample through Cint and Dynata
  • SOC 2 and ISO 27001 certification

Verdict UserTesting hosts online focus groups through Live Conversation and Invite Network. Entropik runs its focus group discussions with AI-assisted moderation.

Outset

Best for Research teams running market strategy studies beside UX work

Outset's AI moderator brings concepts, interfaces or creative assets into the interview, and people take part anonymously, without creating an Outset account. Its 25+ panel integrations reach participants in 85+ countries.

Strengths

  • Seats for observers in shared team workspaces
  • Text, voice and video interviews, and voice-to-voice

Keep in mind

  • Incentives are paid through panel partners

Verdict Outset's AI moderator can press one question with up to 10 follow-ups, which suits UX sessions in which a first answer says little.

Listen Labs

Best for Teams that want boardroom-ready slides from their studies

Listen Labs draws participants from a network of 50M+ people in 45+ countries, and a single study can span several markets. Usability tests with screen sharing sit among its study types, run by an AI moderator over video or voice.

Strengths

  • Emotion read from tone, face and choice of words
  • Interviews in 120+ languages
  • Incentives paid on the studies it recruits

Verdict Listen Labs recruits B2B participants through B2B panel partners such as NewtonX, for users who fit specific criteria (the third review above). Outset counts NewtonX among its panel partners too, and UserTesting reaches B2B users through User Interviews.

Pulse vs Listen Labs

How we evaluated

We compared what each tool's own product, pricing and security pages state against the criteria below. Every fact in the table above links to the page it came from, with the date it was read.

  • Usability and design testing. Whether tasks run moderated, unmoderated or both, what is recorded while they run, and which design files a test can start from.
  • Who moderates. A researcher on a live call, an AI moderator writing its own follow-ups, or either, depending on the study.
  • Joining a session. A link with no account, an app, or screen-recorder software, and what each asks of a participant's device.
  • Audience reach. A vendor's network, partner panels, B2B filters by role, or your own customers, and how finely each can be screened.
  • Participant quality. How a vendor catches people who rush through a session for the incentive, the problem the first review above describes.

Which one to choose

  • If the panel should come from Bilendi or Terac, choose Maze, whose Extended panel draws on both.
  • If interview findings should flow on into Dovetail, choose Outset, which integrates with it.
  • If features need ranking with MaxDiff, and the reasons behind each rank, choose Listen Labs, which follows its MaxDiff questions with AI follow-ups.

What a UserTesting team gets from Pulse

Your own customers in the study

A UX team can bring its own customers into a Pulse study from a list it uploads or a link it shares, or have Pulse recruit participants to the profile its brief describes. Every tool here takes a team's own participants as well, UserTesting through its Custom Network.

Quotes a stakeholder can check

Each quote in a Pulse analysis traces back to its transcript, so a finding can be checked against what the participant said. UserTesting links AI outputs to their evidence, Maze and Listen Labs link quotes to their source, and Entropik and Outset tie clips and snippets to their themes.

Reels for the stakeholder meeting

Pulse cuts highlight reels and clips from its interviews, so a UX team can put a participant's own words and reactions in front of the people who decide. UserTesting, Maze, Entropik, Outset and Listen Labs all make clips or reels too.

Pulse and UserTesting

Book a demo