Respondent vs UserTesting

From $40 per B2C session at pay-as-you-go, plus the incentive you set

Quote on request

Session fees are $40 B2C and $80 B2B at pay-as-you-go, falling about 30% on a large annual commitment, with a further discount for unmoderated studies. You are only charged for completed sessions — no-shows and screen-outs are free. Incentives are separate and you fund them: $100-$400 per professional B2B participant is normal, on top of the session fee.

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

No subscription required; pay per completed session.

No free tier; demo and trial on request.

Established

Respondent · since 2016

Category standard

UserTesting (Thoma Bravo) · since 2007

• Reaches professional segments that general panels simply do not contain.
• Verification meaningfully reduces participants misrepresenting their role.
• No subscription commitment.

• 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.

• Expensive per participant once incentives are included.
• Recruitment only, no research tooling.
• Some fraudulent participation persists despite verification.

• 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.

B2B product teams that need to talk to specific professional roles.

Enterprises running continuous research with dedicated researchers.