Pick Maze if your software team needs fast product feedback at scale. Pick UserTesting if you need rich video interviews, deeper “why” answers, and a strong research workflow for bigger teams.
TLDR: Maze is great for quick usability tests, prototype checks, surveys, and numbers like task success rate. UserTesting is better when you want to watch users talk, react, complain, and explain their choices. For example, a SaaS team testing a new billing page might use Maze to learn that 68% of users failed to find the plan switcher, then use UserTesting to hear five users explain why the wording felt confusing.
UserTesting vs Maze: the simple version
Table of Contents
User research software helps software companies ask one basic question:
“Are real people using this thing the way we hoped?”
That question can save weeks of work. It can also save your team from shipping a feature that looks smart in a meeting and then flops in real life.
UserTesting and Maze both help with product research. But they feel very different.
- UserTesting is like sitting next to a user while they try your product.
- Maze is like sending a smart test to 100 users and getting a report back fast.
Both are useful. They just shine at different moments.
What is UserTesting?
UserTesting is built for watching and hearing people use your product.
You can run moderated interviews. That means you talk to users live. You can also run unmoderated tests. That means users complete tasks on their own while recording their screen, face, or voice.
This is gold for product teams that need context.
A user might say, “I don’t trust this button.” That is useful. Very useful. A chart may tell you users dropped off. But a video tells you they thought the button looked like an ad.
UserTesting is strong for:
- Live user interviews
- Recorded usability tests
- Concept testing
- Messaging tests
- Customer journey research
- Enterprise research programs
It is especially good when your team needs to share clips with executives. Nothing wakes up a roadmap meeting like a customer saying, “I have no idea what this means.”
What is Maze?
Maze is built for fast, unmoderated product research.
You create a test. You send it out. Users complete tasks. Maze turns the results into neat reports.
It works well with prototypes. Many teams use it with Figma designs. You can test flows before engineers write code. That is the dream, right? Finding pain before it becomes a Jira ticket with seven comments and bad energy.
Maze is strong for:
- Prototype testing
- Usability tests
- Surveys
- Feature idea testing
- Information architecture checks
- Task success metrics
- Heatmaps and click paths
Maze is great when you need answers from many people. Fast. It can show where users click, where they get stuck, and how many complete a task.
The big difference: stories vs scores
Here is the easiest way to think about it.
- UserTesting gives you stories.
- Maze gives you scores.
That is a little too simple. But it is useful.
UserTesting helps you understand emotion. You hear doubt. You hear delight. You hear that tiny pause before a user gives up.
Maze helps you measure behavior. You see that 42% of users clicked the wrong tab. You see that the average task took 57 seconds. You see that only 6 out of 10 people reached the right screen.
Both matter.
Honestly, it feels like teams get into trouble when they only pick one type of truth. Numbers without user quotes can feel cold. Quotes without numbers can feel like gossip with a login.
When software companies should choose UserTesting
Choose UserTesting when the “why” matters more than the “how many.”
It is a strong choice for teams working on:
- New product ideas
- Complex B2B software
- Onboarding flows
- Pricing pages
- Enterprise dashboards
- Feature discovery
Let’s say your company sells project management software. Users keep skipping a new workload feature. Analytics says usage is low. Fine. But why?
UserTesting can show the answer. Maybe users do not see the feature. Maybe they think it is only for managers. Maybe the icon looks like a printer from 2009. Painful, but helpful.
UserTesting also has a large participant network. That helps when you need feedback from certain groups. Product managers. IT admins. Finance leads. New parents. Dog owners who also use spreadsheets too much. You get the idea.
The downside? It can feel heavier. Setup can take more time. Pricing is often better suited to larger teams. And if you only need a fast prototype score, it may feel like using a moving truck to carry one chair.
When software companies should choose Maze
Choose Maze when speed and scale matter.
It is great for product teams that test often. Designers can run a test before sprint planning. Product managers can check a feature idea before asking engineers to build it.
Maze is useful for questions like:
- Can users complete this signup flow?
- Do people understand this button label?
- Which pricing page layout works better?
- Where do users click first?
- How long does the task take?
The reports are easy to scan. That matters. Nobody wants to dig through 12 research notes while Slack is screaming.
Here is a simple use case.
A startup is redesigning its free trial flow. The team creates two Figma prototypes. Maze sends 80 users through both versions. Version A gets a 54% completion rate. Version B gets 76%. The team picks Version B and saves engineering time.
The downside? You may miss the deeper feelings. A user may fail a task, but you may not fully understand the messy reason behind it. Sometimes you need to hear the sigh.
Feature comparison
| Need | Better fit | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Live interviews | UserTesting | Better for direct conversation. |
| Fast prototype testing | Maze | Built for quick tests and reports. |
| Video feedback | UserTesting | Strong screen and voice recordings. |
| Task success metrics | Maze | Clear numbers and paths. |
| Enterprise research programs | UserTesting | More suited to large research teams. |
| Design team self-service | Maze | Easy for frequent lightweight testing. |
Pricing and team fit
Pricing can vary by plan, seats, and research needs. So do not treat any tool as cheap or expensive in isolation. Treat it as a cost per good decision.
Maze can be easier for smaller product and design teams to start with. It fits teams that want quick tests every week.
UserTesting often fits larger companies with formal research programs. It can support deeper studies and stakeholder-ready insights.
Expect to waste time on process if your team picks the wrong tool. If you need five quick prototype tests per month, UserTesting may be more than you need. If you need deep interviews with security buyers, Maze may feel too light.
Best workflow: use both if you can
The best teams often use both styles.
Start with Maze. Find the friction. Get the numbers. See where users fail.
Then use UserTesting. Ask users what happened. Watch their faces. Listen to their words.
This combo works well for software companies because product research is not one question. It is a loop.
- Test the idea.
- Measure the task.
- Hear the user.
- Fix the flow.
- Test again.
Final recommendation
If your team is small, moves fast, and tests designs often, start with Maze. It is simple, quick, and built for product teams that want numbers without drama.
If your team sells complex software, serves many customer types, or needs rich user interviews, choose UserTesting. It gives you the human story behind the clicks.
For many software companies, the smartest path is simple. Use Maze to spot the problem. Use UserTesting to understand the person behind it. Then ship a better product, with fewer awkward surprises.
