Last November we made a decision that wasn't smart but was useful. We ran the same six-task usability test on four different platforms — Useberry, Maze, UserTesting, and PlaybookUX — using the same prototype, the same screener criteria, and the same participant count. The test itself was for a real client, a regional credit union redesigning their member portal. The duplication cost us about $4,200 we couldn't bill back. What we got in return was six months of confident answers about which tool to put each kind of work into.
Here's what we found.
Pricing, with the honest version
UserTesting is the expensive one and it's not close. Their entry-level plan starts around $2,000 a month annualized, and most agencies we know are paying $40K to $80K a year for actual access to their full panel and features. The pricing is opaque on purpose. You will negotiate.
Maze sits in the middle. Their team plans run roughly $1,000 a month for a small agency, with per-participant fees if you use their panel rather than recruiting yourself. They're aggressive about upselling enterprise plans, but the team tier is genuinely workable for studio-scale teams.
Useberry is the value play. Around $80 to $200 a month depending on plan, with their panel sold on a credit basis (~$25 per participant for general consumer testing). For a small agency that doesn't need hundreds of tests a year, the math is hard to argue with.
PlaybookUX prices in the same ballpark as Maze, more transparent than UserTesting, with their panel similar in cost to Useberry's. They have a B2B specialty that matters for some clients and not at all for others.
Panel quality, with the part nobody publishes
This is the part you only learn by running parallel tests. UserTesting's panel is the deepest by a clear margin — the participants we got there were more articulate, had more relevant domain experience when we screened for it, and gave us less of the "I read the prompt and then narrated what I think a tester is supposed to say" performance that plagues unmoderated work. Their B2B targeting is the strongest in the market. If you need to test with controllers at mid-market manufacturing companies, they can find them. The other three cannot, not reliably.
Maze's panel was workable for general consumer testing and weak for anything specific. We tried to screen for "people who have applied for a credit union membership in the last two years" and the participants who came through had stretched the truth about that experience badly enough to be obvious in the video.
Useberry's panel had similar issues to Maze's at the niche end, but their general consumer panel was surprisingly good for the price point. The video quality was lower (we noticed compression artifacts) but the content of the responses was honest.
PlaybookUX's panel sat between Maze and UserTesting on quality. Their B2B targeting is real but smaller than UserTesting's. For mid-market consumer work it's competitive.
Features that actually matter
Most feature comparison spreadsheets count things that don't matter. Here's what does in practice.
Screener flexibility
UserTesting wins here decisively. Branching logic in screeners, quota controls per segment, and the ability to set complex eligibility rules without paying for a custom plan. Maze and PlaybookUX both handle basic branching. Useberry's screeners are simple in ways that catch you off guard on niche audiences.
Heat maps and click data
Maze and Useberry both produce clean first-click heat maps. UserTesting has them but treats them as secondary to video. PlaybookUX's are usable but visually rougher. If your deliverable is "show stakeholders where people clicked," Maze is the one we reach for.
Video as the deliverable
UserTesting's video editing tools — clip creation, reel building, transcript search — are years ahead of the others. Highlight reels are how we communicate findings to executives, and the time saved on reel building alone justifies the price gap if you're producing them weekly. PlaybookUX is the next best here. Maze and Useberry both lag.
Prototype handling
Maze has the best Figma integration. The link-and-go experience is fastest, and the test results map back to specific Figma frames cleanly. Useberry is close. UserTesting handles Figma fine but it feels bolted on. PlaybookUX is usable but unloved.
What we use for what
For executive-facing video deliverables on retainer work: UserTesting. The cost is justified by the time we save and the credibility the panel gives findings.
For weekly design iteration on prototypes — quick directional tests on Figma flows: Maze. Fast, cheap, the heat maps satisfy stakeholders, and the Figma integration removes friction.
For first-click tests, tree tests, and card sorts where we don't need video: Useberry. Genuinely good value, and the methodology-specific tools (tree testing in particular) are stronger than any of the others.
For B2B work that's not big enough to justify UserTesting's price: PlaybookUX. The B2B panel is the differentiator. We use them maybe five times a year.
If we could only keep one, it would be Maze for breadth and Useberry for value, and we'd push back hard on any executive who claimed UserTesting was a hard requirement without having priced the alternatives. We've watched too many agencies pay UserTesting prices for work that didn't need UserTesting's panel.