UserTesting vs Maze

Quote on request

Free tier available

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

Maze has withdrawn public pricing — its pricing page is now a feature-comparison table where every paid tier resolves to a form, so the Starter figures quoted by third-party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.

No free tier; demo and trial on request.

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

Category standard

UserTesting (Thoma Bravo) · since 2007

Widely used

Maze · since 2018

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

Enterprises running continuous research with dedicated researchers.

Product and design teams validating flows early and often.