Useberry vs UserTesting

From $67 per month (indicative)

Quote on request

Cheaper than Maze at comparable functionality; participant recruitment is separate.

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

Free plan with limited tests and responses.

No free tier; demo and trial on request.

Emerging

Useberry · since 2018

Category standard

UserTesting (Thoma Bravo) · since 2007

• Good value — most of Maze's capability at a lower price.
• Supports a wide range of prototype sources.
• Card sorting and tree testing included rather than sold separately.

• 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.

• Smaller company with a lighter integration ecosystem.
• No moderated research.
• Limited built-in panel.

• 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.

Small teams that want prototype testing without enterprise pricing.

Enterprises running continuous research with dedicated researchers.