UserTesting vs Respondent

Quote on request

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

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

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.

No free tier; demo and trial on request.

No subscription required; pay per completed session.

Category standard

UserTesting (Thoma Bravo) · since 2007

Established

Respondent · since 2016

• 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.

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

• 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.

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

Enterprises running continuous research with dedicated researchers.

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