User research is a very important component in modern product development, and having a well-curated tool stack to support your research operations is essential. Maze is a well known usability testing and research tool that has been popular, but there are several other alternatives in the market that can provide better value and help for your team to achieve its user research goals. In this blog post, we will present 14 alternatives to Maze that you can choose if you are looking to build a ROI positive user research practice and also looking for more versatility, ease of use and enterprise-grade support. If you are looking for alternatives to Maze, you have come to the right place.
We have recently curated a list of the top 14 alternatives to Maze, highlighting some of the most effective and versatile solutions available in the market today. Each tool on the list offers its own unique set of advantages and limitations, making it essential to carefully evaluate your specific needs before making a choice. The right solution for your team will depend on a variety of critical factors, including the size of your team, the nature and scope of your research, and your broader business goals. In this post, we aim to provide you with the detailed information and insights necessary to confidently choose a tool that aligns with your team’s objectives and enhances your research process. For the ratings, we referenced reviews from G2 as well as Capterra.
The 14 Best Maze Alternatives in 2025
Here is a list of the best 14 Maze alternatives in 2025.
A Quick Overview of Maze’s Offering
Before diving into the alternatives, we want to quickly show an overview of Maze's plans and capabilities. In summary, Maze is a user research tool that offers several features for unmoderated testing. In particular, Maze offers a strong set of features for unmoderated, including prototype testing, concept testing and live web testing.
Here is a quick summary of Maze's plans:
1. Hubble
Hubble is one of the leading alternatives to Maze, offering a unified set of tools for continuous user experience management.
Compared with other tools, Hubble is unique because it provides a wide range of research coverage throughout the product development cycle, with the flexibility to conduct research with external participants and also active product users. Hubble’s feature set includes usability tests, prototype tests, card sorting tests and in-product surveys. With these, product managers, UX designers and UX researchers can collect user feedback across all stages of product development from external participants or in-product users. Hubble's wide coverage makes it a good fit for fast-moving product teams that are looking to utilize one single tool to be able to collect various types of feedback data and research from their customers.
Hubble's unmoderated tool enables teams to quickly gather feedback on product concepts by conducting prototype tests. Using Hubble's usability results, UX researchers can gather quantitative data, including heat maps, click data, success paths, completion rates, and time spent on each task. Furthermore, Hubble's usability tests allow UX researchers to perform various types of tasks, such as A/B tests, design preference tests, open card sorting tests and close card sorting tests.
The usability tests created through Hubble can be easily shared with anyone through a link, and you also have the option to utilize a pool of more than 5 million participants to collect testing results from a dedicated panel.
Features
- Contextual Surveys
- Card Sorting
- User Targeting
- Usability Tests
- Prototype Tests
- Preference Tests
- First Click Test
- External Participant Recruitment
- In-product Participant Recruitment
Pros
- Access to 3 million participants from 150 different countries
- Flexibility to run unmoderated research as well as in-product research from actual users
- Integrations with data analytics platforms for contextual in-product surveying
- Unlimited studies and surveys with no caps
- Powerful unmoderated features such as card sorting, design preference test, survey questions and many others
- Powerful video, audio and quantitative usability testing results including click recordings, heatmaps and others
- Easy and intuitive user interface: Simple, easy to use user interface that anyone in the product team can utilize
- Extensive template library and research guidance: The teams that use Hubble can leverage any of the templates or start from scratch depending on their needs
- Dedicated customer success manager
Cons
- Hubble supports moderated study support through other video conferencing tools, and does not offer a native moderated interviewing experience.
- Hubble does not offer integrations with other product design tools like Sketch or Invision
Reviews
G2 rating
- 4.9/5
Based on reviews provided by Capterra
- Overall Score: 4.8/5
- Ease of Use: 4.7/5
- Value for Money: 4.9/5
- Customer Service: 5/5
Pricing
Custom pricing for enterprises and $95 per month for the pro plan
Hubble vs. Maze
If you are comparing Hubble to Maze, here are some key differences to think about when considering between the two tools.
- Price: Maze’s Teams plan provides a limited number of studies, and the starter plan does not support SDK integrations and connections to key integrations such as amplitude. Hubble offers affordable and flexible price plans, with full support for integrations and other features.
- In-product research: Maze’s SDK does not offer powerful in-product research. Hubble offers much more power, providing options to target URLs, custom events, attributes and integrations with user data platforms like Segment. If you want to collect contextual user data, Hubble can provide much more optionality
- Integrations: Maze supports a variety of design tool integrations such as Figma, Sketch, AdobeXD, Axure and Invision. Hubble offers the best-in-class integration for Figma.
- Usability: Maze has different layers and workspaces in its user interface, which can be confusing. Hubble offers a much more straightforward user experience that is easy for everyone within the team.
- Participant pool size: Maze offers a smaller pool with integrations with Prolific and Cint. Hubble offers a native panel of more than 3 million participants from 150 countries, covering both B2C and B2B personas with integrations to Respondent and User Interviews.
- Time to insights: Both Hubble and Maze offer quick insights for both unmoderated and moderated research
If you are in a team that requires more sophisticated research and you are interested in running continuous research, covering all stages of the product development process, choose Hubble. Hubble provides support for unmoderated, participant recruitment, usability tests, prototype tests and in-product research. In addition, if you are looking for faster and easier Figma prototypes with heat maps and click data, Hubble offers an easy and fast user experience that anyone in your team will be able to learn quickly.
For a side-by-side feature comparison, learn more at Hubble vs Maze article.
Elevate your continuous UX Research
Validate your concepts and collect post-launch feedback through Hubble
2. UserTesting
UserTesting is a video-based, user research tool that helps with moderated and unmoderated research. User Testing facilitates the execution of unmoderated task-based studies, offering a pool of 1 million participants in many different geographies.
Features
- Moderated Studies
- Unmoderated Studies
- Prototype Tests
- Diary Studies
- Participant Recruitment
Pros
- UserTesting provides native fully integrated support for moderated research, allowing for interviews, diary studies and usability tests in a real-time remote setting
- Supports mobile device testing (both iOS and android)
- Provides access to a panel of 1 million users from many different geographies for rapid research
Cons
- UserTesting offers less flexible pricing (starting plans at $30K)
- UserTesting does offer unmoderated tests but it doesn’t offer state-of-the-art integrations with widely used design and product tools like Figma.
- UserTesting doesn’t offer summarizations for test results including consolidated heatmaps for usability tests
Pricing
UserTesting offers custom pricing for organizations (plans start at $30K per year)
Reviews
G2 rating
- 4.5/5
Ratings are based on scores provided by Capterra
- Overall Score: 4.5/5
- Ease of Use: 4.4/5
- Value for Money: 4.5/5
- Customer Service: 4.4/5
Maze vs. UserTesting
If your team is looking to conduct more moderated tests, and need access to a wider panel including B2B (especially if focused on North America), choose UserTesting. If you have a bigger budget and want a native integration of moderated interviews, UserTesting will be a better choice for you and your team.
Lastly, If you work at a larger team and need closer support and dedicated CSM attention, UserTesting offers a much higher touch service vs. Maze. UserTesting can be a solid choice if you need an enterprise solution that has a larger participant panel and stronger support for moderated studies.
3. UserZoom (now part of UserTesting)
UserZoom is a consolidated user research platform geared towards assisting teams in the management and assessment of digital user experiences. Its primary users includes designers, marketers and product teams offering options for both remote moderated and unmoderated testing. UserTesting and UserZoom have now merged, although they are maintaining both platforms separately.
Reviews
G2 rating
- 4.2/5
Ratings are based on scores provided by Capterra
- Overall Score: 4.4
- Ease of Use: 4.5/5
- Value for Money: 4.6/5
- Customer Service: 4.7/5
Pros
- On the platform, you have the capability to conduct user interviews and extend invitations to stakeholders to observe sessions from a virtual observation room
- It utilizes the QXscore metric to evaluate the user experience, which combines your platform's net promoter score (NPS), visual appeal, trustworthiness, and ease of use.
- UserZoom provides the opportunity to access both qualitative and quantitative insights resulting from your tests
Cons
- Bad user experience; not very easy to use
- Focused on the enterprise, with less flexible pricing options
Pricing
UserZoom offers custom pricing for enterprises.
UserZoom vs. Maze
UserZoom is a well known tool that can help you with unmoderated and moderated research. Compared to other enteprise platforms like UserTesting, UserZoom offers a better focus on unmoderated studies with a mix of quantitative and qualitative results. UserZoom also has a larger panel of testers than Maze, providing a wider range of personas that you can reach out to through your research.
If you work for a company (mid-sized or enterprise) and want to collect qualitative and quantitative research results from a large panel, while measuring other in-product insights, use UserZoom. If you are a freelancer or student, you will probably be better just using Maze’s starter version.
4. Lyssna
Lyssna, formerly known as UsabilityHub, is a UX research tool designed to conduct remote research. The primary users of the product are designers, product managers, and marketers. Lyssna’s offerings include usability testing, user interviews, surveys, market research, and the recruitment of research participants.
Pros
- Many unmoderated testing features such as five-second, first-clicks, prototype, or preference tests
- Economic recruitment costs
Cons
- No screen recordings for usability test participants
- Separate monthly payment for participants and the software tool
Reviews
G2 rating
- 4.5/5
Ratings are based on scores provided by Capterra
- Overall Score: 4.4
- Ease of Use: 4.5/5
- Value for Money: 4.6/5
- Customer Service: 4.7/5
Pricing
- Free (3 seats and 15 responses)
- Basic (3 seats and unlimited responses)
- Pro (5 seats and custom branding)
- Enterprise (custom pricing)
Lyssna vs. Maze
Lyssna and Maze are both widely used user research tools known for their ability to deliver fast research results. Nevertheless, Lyssna offers a larger pool than Maze and offers better moderated support. Overall, if you are interested in having a larger participant pool and want to run unmoderated studies with good integrations, you should try other solutions like Hubble or UserZoom.
5. Userlytics
Userlytics is a UX research platform that offers a variety of research methods and including prototype testing, live website testing and a participant pool of 2 million. Userlytics offers user flows, click tracks, open analytics and many features that help teams gather feedback on their designs and live products. For smaller teams and researchers, Userlytics can be a good choice with more affordable price plans and multiple types of supported research.
Pros
- Prototype testing capability
- Live web testing
- Mobile testing
- 5 second test
- User flows for prototypes
Cons
- Doesn’t have in-product integration for surveying or actual user research
- User interface is not very straightforward
- Doesn’t integrate well with Figma and doesn’t provide detailed user paths and heatmaps for Figma
Reviews
G2 rating
- 4.4/5
Ratings are based on scores provided by Capterra
- Overall Score: 4.6/5
- Ease of Use: 4.5/5
- Value for Money: 4.7/5
- Customer Service: 4.9/5
Pricing
Prices based on annual subscriptions. Enterprise plans start at $3,500 per year with custom volumes for participants and responses.
Userlytics vs. Maze
Userlytics is a great solution for larger companies that need to run research projects more frequently. Userlytics offers multiple types of research and testing including moderated testing and unmoderated testing., making it a good solution that can help product and UX teams conduct research. If you need a solution that can cover a wider range of research needs and a larger participant pool, you can use other solutions in this list.
6. Optimal Workshop
Optimal Workshop is a user research platform that contains tools to run various testing methods to gather both qualitative and quantitative insights. This platform provides solutions for user research, UX design, and information architecture.
Pros
- Optimal Workshop lets you collect data like clicks and paths taken, as well as user expectations and the sentiment behind their actions
- It offers multiple testing methods like card sorting, tree testing, moderated usability testing, first-click testing, and surveys
- Optimal Workshop gives you access to tests using their pre-screened and ready-to-answer pool of participants. Or, find custom participants to answer your queries
Cons
- Doesn’t offer direct integrations with design tools for prototype importing
- Limited integrations and limited targeting options for participant recruitment
Reviews
G2 rating
- 4.5/5
Ratings are based on scores provided by Capterra
- Overall Score: 4.5/5
- Ease of Use: 4/5
- Value for Money: 4.4/5
- Customer Service: 5/5
Pricing
- Free trial available
- Pro starts at $208 per month
- Team starts at $191/user/month
- Custom enterprise option available
Optimal Workshop vs. Maze
Optimal workshop is a good choice if you need a low-budget user research tool. Optimal Workshop is fairly accessible for a range of users. Both Maze and Optimal Workshop provide good support and value-based offerings for small startups and SMBs.
Both Maze and Optimal Workshop can be good choices if you are looking for a light tool that will help your team conduct basic research. Maze offers stronger integrations with Figma and better data visualization, but Optimal Workshop offers more sophisticated card sorting modules and a larger participant pool. You can choose either if you're a small team in the initial stages of integrating user research, operating within budget constraints, or comfortable working without direct integrations with tools Like Figma. If you are looking for tools that are designed for larger teams and you need in-product experience research capabilities, choose a tool geared for organizations like Hubble, UserZoom or UserTesting.
7. Lookback
Lookback provides a research tool that covers qualitative, moderated testing, enabling your team to conduct research calls and organize data in real-time. It also facilitates collaborative work for product teams, allowing multiple team members to join calls, engage in chats, and highlight comments without disrupting participant conversations. Lookback is mainly a moderated tool.
Pros
- All sessions are recorded within the player, providing researchers with access to timestamps and comments from live sessions to expedite information retrieval.
- Lookback simplifies collaboration within research teams through its live sharing feature, enabling researchers to invite team members to view sessions and make time-stamped notes.
- Your team also has the option to establish projects and incorporate a combination of testing approaches. You can assess one of your app's features through both moderated and unmoderated methods while maintaining a centralized repository for all responses.
Cons
- Sometimes, participants can have trouble downloading the Lookback extension and app
- Companies are charged based on number of sessions vs. seats (there is a limit to the # of sessions you can run)
- Doesn’t support unmoderated features
- Offers an integration with User Interviews but doesn’t offer a native panel within it’s price plan
Reviews
G2 rating
- 4.3/5
Ratings are based on scores provided by Capterra
- Overall Score: 3.4/5
- Ease of Use: 3.6/5
- Value for Money: 3/5
- Customer Service: 2.2/5
Pricing
- Freelance: starts at $25 per month (up to 40 sessions per year)
- Team plan: $149 per month (up to 150 sessions per year)
- Insights Hub: $344 per month (500 sessions per year)
- Custom pricing for enterprise
Lookback vs. Maze
Lookback and Maze both offer support for remote moderated testing, although Maze focuses more on unmoderated, and it’s moderated capabilities are quite limited. Lookback’s pricing is also very affordable but it doesn’t have a native tester panel included as it’s core service.
Choose Lookback if you need a lightweight tool that can help you with moderated user interviews and remote usability testing with good video support. Lookbacks affordable price plans are also a plus if you are not an enterprise customer or looking for something one-time.
8. Loop11
Loop11 is a research tool that offers both moderated and unmoderated options, and it is designed to uncover insights with ease. With Loop11, you can conduct usability testing, benchmarking, A/B tests, assess search engine discoverability, IA Testing, and various other types of research activities.
Pros
- Test on desktop, mobile and tablet
- Supports both quantitative and qualitative data
- Loop11 connects to design tools like Figma, AdobeXD, InVision, Axure, and JustInMind
- Loop11 supports audio and video recordings for unmoderated studies
Cons
- Complex UX that is hard to learn
- No support for in-product surveying and experience management
- No editing
Reviews
G2 rating
- 3.6/5
Ratings are based on scores provided by Capterra
- Overall Score: 4.5/5
- Ease of Use: 4.5/5
- Value for Money: 5/5
- Customer Service: 5/5
Pricing
Loop11 plans come with a 14-day free trial.
- Rapid Insights: $199 per month (3 projects per month)
- Pro: $399 per month (10 projects per month)
- Enterprise: $599 per month (Unlimited projects per month)
Loop11 vs. Maze
Loop11 and Maze both support moderated and unmoderated testing. However, both Maze and Loop11 don’t support in-product studies and research well and Loop11’s UX is a bit more difficult to learn versus other platforms, based on our research.
If you want to run moderated and unmoderated tests at an accessible cost, you can consider both Loop11 and Maze. If you have larger budget and need access to a larger pool of participants with better support for in-product surveying and a larger participant pool, you can use other tools on this list.
9. Userfeel
Userfeel is a user research platform created by UX researchers, offering both moderated and unmoderated research options. Userfeel has flexible pricing options and allows for different types of research.
Pros
- Userfeel offers flexible pricing plans including monthly subscriptions vs. annual plans
- Participant pool of 150K participants
- Unlimited users and seats for paid users
Cons
- Limited screening and filtering options
- Pay as you go options can be limited and ends up costing more than buying annual licenses
- Usability issues
Reviews
G2 rating
- 4.4/5
Ratings are based on scores provided by Capterra
- Overall Score: 4.6/5
- Ease of Use: 4.6/5
- Value for Money: 4.2/5
- Customer Service: 4.5/5
Pricing
- 1 hour unmoderated with your own participant: $30
- 1 hour moderated with your own participant: $60
- 20 minute session with Userfeel tester: $60
- 40 minute session with Userfeel tester: $120
- 1 hour moderated session with Userfeel tester: $180
Userfeel vs. Maze
Userfeel and Maze are both easy, lightweight solutions that helps small businesses and freelancers collect quick user research insights. Userfeel also offers moderated and unmoderated sessions with a pool of participants. Userfeel can be a great tool if you are a solo researcher but if you need a more sophisticated tool for continuous research, you can pick other solutions on this list.
10. Userbrain
Userbrain is a UX research tool that offers various types of user testing. The test results can be shared within your team and you can test prototypes, websites and mobile apps. The platform also offers over 110K participants that can be used for recruitment.
Pros
- Ability to test live websites, prototypes and mobile applications
- Participant pool
- Large # of seats
Cons
- No support for in-product research
- Not a good option for runing multiple UX research methods
- Limited participant pool (110K)
- Limited screening options for participants
Reviews
G2 rating
- 4.8/5
Ratings are based on scores provided by Capterra
- Overall Score: 4.3/5
- Ease of Use: 4.6/5
- Value for Money: 4.4/5
- Customer Service: 4.7/5
Pricing
- Starter: $79/month (36 testers included)
- Pro: $239/month (120 testers included)
- Agency: $659/month (360 testers included)
Userbrain vs. Maze
Userbrain and Maze are both lightweight user research solutions designed to assist small businesses and freelancers in gathering rapid user research insights. Userbrain and maze both offer a variety of testing options and a mid-sized participant pool to be able to conduct external research.
Userfeel provides flexible pricing plans and the choice of moderated or unmoderated sessions with a participant pool. For solo researchers, Userfeel can be an excellent choice. However, if you require a more advanced tool for ongoing research, you may want to consider alternative solutions from the list.
11. TryMata
Trymata is another Maze alternative that can be used for website testing. The company was formerly called TryMyUI and offers moderated and unmoderated research services.
Pros
- Usability testing for websites and mobile apps
- Prototype testing
- Web & mobile app testing
- First impression testing
Cons
- User interface is not very straightforward
- Doesn’t have in-product integration for surveying
- Panel size is around 500K participants
Reviews
G2 rating
- 4.5/5
Ratings are based on scores provided by Capterra
- Overall Score: 3.7/5
- Ease of Use: 3.3/5
- Value for Money: 3.0/5
- Customer Service: 3.1/5
Pricing
- Starter: $399/month (10 testers and responses)
- Pro: $1667/month (360 testers per year)
- Agency: $3333/month (Unlimited participants)
TryMata vs. Maze
TryMata is a U.S. based company that offers a wide range of testing capabilities with a strong focus on moderated testing for websites. TryMata offers usability testing, product analytics and a research repository feature.
If you want to solution that includes analytics and a repository feature, TryMata can be a good alternative to Maze. However, TryMata doesn’t offer the ability to collect in-product responses, and the participant pool size is smaller than 500K participants. If you want to use a more versatile tool with enterprise level support and participant recruiting, please consider other tools in this list.
12. Useberry
Useberry is a UX research platform that offers a variety of research methods and including prototype testing, live website testing and a participant pool of 120K. Useberry offers user flows, click tracks, open analytics and many features that help teams gather feedback on their designs and live products.
For smaller teams and researchers, Useberry can be a good choice as its pricing model is flexible and it only costs $79 per month.
Pros
- Prototype testing capability
- Live web testing
- First impression testing
- 5 second test
- User flows for prototypes
Cons
- Doesn’t have in-product integration for surveying or actual user research
- User interface is not very straightforward
- US support is not very great (many customers are European)
- Smaller participant pool size of around 120K participants
Reviews
G2 rating
- 4.3/5
Pricing
- Free: $0/month (10 responses per month)
- Growth: $79/month (300 responses per month)
- Enterprise: Custom
Useberry vs. Maze
Useberry is a great solution for smaller companies and solo-researchers trying to run research projects With its ability to run prototype tests, participant recruiting and live website tests, Useberry can be a good solution that can help product and UX teams conduct research. If you need a solution that can cover a wider range of research needs and a larger participant pool, you can use other solutions in this list.
13. Great Question
Great Question is another viable Maze Alternative that offers a variety of research methods including prototype testing, unmoderated studies as well as moderated research. Great Question also offers a Respondent integration which can be used to source more than 3 million participants from 150 different countries. For companies looking for a versatile tool, replacing Maze, Great Question can be a decent option.
Pros
- Ability to recruit your own users for testing
- Various unmoderated testing features
- Respondent integration
- CRM integrations
Cons
- Does not offer any in-product targeting capabilities
- Prototype test results and options are not as robust as Maze
- AI features are still relatively new - including the customer insights synthesis
Reviews
- 4.7/5
Pricing
- Free: $0/month
- Team: $35/month per seat (up to 4 seats)
- Enterprise: Custom Pricing
14. DScout
Dscout is a user research platform that provides various features including unmoderated testing, moderated testing and participant recruitment. Dscout is well known for it's diary studies but its unmoderated testing features are also potential options if you are looking to replace Maze. Dscout's platform is a bit more comprehensive, but the prototype testing and analytics features that Dscout offers is not as strong as Maze, Hubble and UserTesting's.
Pros
- Comprehensive features including participant recruitment, unmoderated and moderated
- Enterprise grade security
- Strong synthesis and diary studies capabilities
- Better moderated study support
Cons
- Usability testing features are not as strong
- More expensive than Maze in many cases
- Participant pool is relatively small and not as broad as others
- 4.5/5
Pricing
- Enterprise: Custom Pricing
Factors to consider when choosing a Maze Alternative
Now that we have discussed some of the possible alternatives for Maze, it’s time to think about what are some of the factors to consider when choosing a Maze alternative. Selecting the right tool that can cover your needs will ensure that the research results make the most impact and the product research endeavors continue to drive ROI within the company.
1. Testing Methodologies
Modern product teams need to leverage different types of research methodologies when conducting research. Before selecting a tool, make sure to determine the type of insights insights you need. Maze is great if you need to run prototype tests and collect quantitative data, but it doesn’t have a large participant pool and it’s capabilities to collect insights from actual users in the product is limited.
So, if you need to run usability tests, prototype tests and also collect in-product research insights, you should try to use a tool like Hubble. Hubble provides multiple different methods of feedback including heat maps, card sorting, surveys and in-product feedback. You can also get access to 3 million research participants from more than 150 countries, which is the largest participant pool in the industry.
2. Test Setup and Templates
When selecting a research tool, you need to consider how fast and easy it is to setup a study and how easy the product is to set up and integrate with your existing tools such as Figma, Segment and other analytics tools. Make sure that your tool meets the following criteria:
- Easy experience for testers, with intuitive tester UI / UX
- Has a high quality pool of vetted testers that you can use for your testing purposes
- SDK support to be able to collect survey responses and send recruitment requests to in-product users
- Comes with pre-set templates that you can utilize in all circumstances so that your team can reduce the amount of time it takes to launch a study and collect responses
Hubble, UserZoom and UserTesting are the two products that fit these criteria, and also offer enterprise options for companies with more sophisticated research and product feedback needs.
3. Integrations With Other Tools
Maze offers integrations with Figma, AdobeXD, InVision and other design tools. Most of the teams nowadays use Figma, so having a good integration with Figma is table stakes for the user research tool to be effective for any team. Many of the tools on this list support connections to Figma, but they don’t support the quantitative data (heat maps, user paths and funnels) that Hubble and Maze are able to provide.
However, Maze only supports an integration with Amplitude cohorts and it doesn’t offer powerful integrations with user data platforms to power in-product research and user recruitment. If you are looking for a more versatile tool that can help you collect feedback across the product development cycle (both pre-launch and post-launch feedback), Hubble or UserZoom can be better options.
4. Scalability
Maze has changed recently and has limited the starter and team plans to only support a limited number of studies (the existing starter plan now only supports 10 studies). This may be okay for smaller teams that don’t have that many researchers or are not running many studies but if you want to be able to launch may studies and surveys without limits, you can use other tools within our list such as Hubble, Optimal Workshop and UserTesting.
Why look for an alternative to Maze?
Maze is a tool that is very easy to use and has been used by many freelancers and smaller startups, but it has some limitations if you are looking to adopt a single tool for continuous research across the product development cycle. Most importantly, Maze’s paid plans limit the number of studies per month which can restrain product teams from maximizing the UX research insights they can collect.
Moreover, while Maze provides different types of unmoderated research features, it does not provide a full set of features to be able to collect in-product insights from actual users. If you are looking for more sophisticated all-round capabilities and an extensive panel, there are several other tools that can better serve your needs.
Here are some considerations that are important when thinking of other alternatives to Maze:
Not great for larger companies and enterprises
Maze’s most popular plan is the $95 per month starter plan, which is a good choice for freelancers, startups and students that don't work in a scaled product or UX organization. Other platforms like Hubble, UserTesting and UserZoom are better designed to providing an all-in-one solution with an enterprise-grade participant pool. The customer success that you are able to receive will also be better since Maze's core offering is self-serve.
Limited active studies for paid plans
Maze limits the number of studies teams can run per year for both Starter and Team plans. This creates issues for teams that are looking to test frequently and obtain continuous feedback.
Not fit for enterprise-grade experience management
Maze provides a good set of capabilities for unmoderated testing but it doesn’t provide strong capabilities to collect feedback from actual product users. Maze offers an integration with Amplitude but it doesn't connect with other analytics tools like Segment, which command a large part of the market share in the CDP space. Maze’s SDK also does not offer a variety of triggering options like URL targeting, CSS component selectors as well as event or attribute based triggers, which are important options to trigger in-product surveys with high degrees of precision.
Small participant pool and limited access to US participants
Maze offers a relatively smaller pool of participants vs enterprise solutions like UserTesting, Qualtrics and Hubble and it doesn’t include any participant credits in the teams plan, which creates limitations if you want to conduct external participant research.
Not an intuitive user experience
Maze's brand and UI design is high quality but the overall user experience can be confusing and counter-intuitive. To drive maximum efficiency, you should use a tool that is accessible and easy to learn by all team members, irrespective of their technical abilities or the frequency of usage.
Which is the best alternative to Maze?
All things considered, Maze could still be the solution for you. It depends on what you’re looking for, but if you’re interested in quality user testing at an affordable price—we’ve got some good news for you.
Maze may still be the right tool for you if you are looking for a tool that costs less than $100 per month and you are only looking to run one study per month. If you are looking for a more economic alternative and you need a tool that doesn’t limit the number of studies you can run per month, tools like Optimal Workshop or Userbrain may be good candidates. Both of these tools provide unmoderated research, moderated research as well as a small participant pool that you can use to collect feedback.
If you are looking for a more versatile tool that doesn’t just provide unmoderated tests but also in-product integrations to collect survey responses, send recruitment requests or even display usability tests to your active users, Hubble is the only all-in-one tool that provides a unified experience so that you can collect research insights across the product development cycle. In addition, Hubble offers the largest participant pool in the market with over 3 million participants from 150 different countries, with the ability to run moderated and unmoderated tests.
Elevate your continuous UX Research
Validate your concepts and collect post-launch feedback through Hubble
If you are interested in further exploring various tools available in the market, we recommend some of the articles below:
- To learn more about top UX research tools, please see the best user research tools.
- To see our curated list of survey tools, see the best survey tools for research.
- Learn more about UserTesting and its alternatives.
- For a more detailed comparison between Hubble and Maze, please check out our post on Hubble vs Maze.
