UserTesting vs Survicate

Quote on request

From $114 per month (annual billing, Growth)

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

Billed on monthly survey responses, so the cost rises exactly when a survey is working. Seats and integration count are gated by tier as well, which is what usually forces the upgrade rather than the response cap.

No free tier; demo and trial on request.

10-day trial, no card. No permanently free tier.

Category standard

UserTesting (Thoma Bravo) · since 2007

Established

Survicate · since 2015

• 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.

• One survey, every channel — web, in-product, email, mobile and link — with the answers pooled rather than siloed per tool.
• Event-triggered in-product surveys catch people at the moment the behaviour happened.
• CRM and support integrations attach responses to a real customer record instead of an anonymous id.

• 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.

• Priced by responses, which penalises the surveys that get answered.
• It collects opinions, not observed behaviour; pair it with replay or analytics rather than reading it alone.
• Survey fatigue is a real cost to your product, and nothing in the tool stops you over-asking.

Enterprises running continuous research with dedicated researchers.

Product teams that want the 'why' behind an analytics drop-off without commissioning a research study.