Maze vs User Interviews vs UserTesting

Free tier available

From $49 per session (pay-as-you-go; $41 and $36 on annual commitments)

Quote on request

Maze has withdrawn public pricing — its pricing page is now a feature-comparison table where every paid tier resolves to a form, so the Starter figures quoted by third-party sites are not verifiable. Panel recruitment is billed separately from the platform subscription.

Per-participant recruiting fee plus the incentive you choose. Specialist B2B professionals cost considerably more.

Annual contracts, historically in the tens of thousands. Priced by seats and study volume, not per session.

Free plan with a limited number of studies and responses per month.

Free to manage your own participants; recruitment is pay-per-participant.

No free tier; demo and trial on request.

Widely used

Maze · since 2018

Widely used

User Interviews · since 2015

Category standard

UserTesting (Thoma Bravo) · since 2007

• Test a Figma prototype with real users before building anything.
• Quantitative metrics make results defensible in a product review.
• Usable free tier for evaluation and small studies.

• Solves recruiting, which is the actual bottleneck in most research programmes.
• Handles incentive payment and scheduling logistics, saving substantial coordinator time.
• Works with whatever session tooling you already use.

• The deepest participant panel, including hard-to-reach professional segments.
• Sessions come back within hours, not days.
• Analysis tooling — transcripts, sentiment, clip creation — makes findings shareable.

• Unmoderated only — you cannot ask a follow-up question.
• Prototype testing measures a happy path, not the messy reality of a live product.
• Bring-your-own-participants works well; the built-in panel is smaller than UserTesting's.

• No testing or analysis features — it is recruitment only.
• Panel is strongest in North America.
• Costs mount quickly for specialist B2B roles.

• Expensive with a high minimum commitment; unaffordable for small teams.
• Panel participants are experienced testers, which can skew behaviour towards articulate narration.
• Annual contracts do not suit occasional research needs.

Product and design teams validating flows early and often.

Teams whose research is blocked on finding and paying the right participants.

Enterprises running continuous research with dedicated researchers.