The best Maze alternatives for UX research teams in 2026 are Decode, UXtweak, Lyssna, Userlytics, UserTesting, Optimal Workshop, Lookback and dscout. Teams switch when they need more than unmoderated prototype tests: interviews, diary studies, global recruitment or deeper AI analysis. Decode covers usability testing, interviews and emotion AI in a single platform.
For enterprise panels and moderated testing, UserTesting. For all-round self-serve testing with transparent pricing, Lyssna. For information architecture, Optimal Workshop. For prototype testing on a budget, UXtweak or Useberry.
And if task metrics tell you where users struggled but not how they felt about it, Decode runs the same prototype and usability tests with facial coding, eye tracking and voice emotion measured in the session.
Not sure which fits? Talk to our research team and bring the prototype you’re testing next.
Maze alternatives compared at a glance
Pricing and plan gates as of October 2026, from each vendor’s own pricing and help pages.
Tool | Best for | Starting price | Card sorting and tree testing | AI moderation | Emotion and attention | Main limitation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Decode | Usability tests that measure emotion and attention | Free plan ($0, 100 responses a month); Enterprise quote-based | Yes | Yes, AI-moderated interviews on the Free plan | Yes: facial coding, eye tracking, voice emotion | Built for research teams; quick tests run on the Free plan |
UserTesting | Enterprise panels and moderated testing | Quote only | Paid tier only | Partial: AI analysis | No | Annual contract, priced well above Maze’s free tier |
Lyssna | All-round self-serve testing | Free; Growth $166 a month billed annually | Yes, from the free plan | Partial: AI follow-up questions | No | Lighter analysis than enterprise suites |
Optimal Workshop | Information architecture research | Starter $199 a month billed annually (5 studies a year) | Yes, its core | No | No | Prototype testing is less central than in Maze |
UXtweak | Broad methods on a small budget | Free; Business reported from about $92 per user a month | Yes, from the free plan | No | No | Dense interface |
Useberry | Affordable Figma prototype testing | Free (10 responses a month); Growth $67 a month billed yearly | Yes | No | No | Smaller participant pool |
Userlytics | Global moderated and unmoderated sessions | From $34 a session on annual plans | Yes | Partial: AI UX analysis | No | Interface feels dated |
dscout | Diary studies and in-context research | Quote only | No | No | No | Lighter prototype click analytics |
Which Maze features need Enterprise, and where to get them instead
Some Maze methods are on the free plan and many are not. Check which plan you actually need before assuming you have to switch.
Maze method or feature | Maze plan | Also available on a free or self-serve tier |
|---|---|---|
Prototype testing | Free (essential prototype testing) | Lyssna, UXtweak, Useberry, Decode |
Surveys | Free | Lyssna, UXtweak, Decode |
Card sorting and tree testing | Enterprise | Lyssna and UXtweak (from their free plans), Useberry, Optimal Workshop Starter, Decode |
Moderated interview studies | Enterprise | Lyssna (interviews on every plan), Decode |
AI-moderated interviews | Enterprise | Decode (included on the Free plan) |
Mobile app testing | Enterprise | UXtweak, Userlytics, Decode |
AI study builder and Maze AI | Enterprise | Decode’s AI research agents draft studies for review |
SSO and enterprise security | Enterprise | Enterprise tiers across most tools |
Why teams look for Maze alternatives
Five reasons come up again and again in reviews and on r/UXDesign.
Feature gates. Interview studies, AI moderation, mobile testing, card sorting and tree testing sit on Enterprise.
Opaque pricing. maze.co/pricing shows no dollar figures. Every paid path runs through a sales conversation.
Tight free limits. The free plan allows one study a month, and panel participants are billed in credits on top.
AI features above budget. Maze’s AI moderator and AI study builder are strong, but they’re Enterprise features. Teams with smaller budgets look elsewhere for the same capabilities.
Signal depth. Task metrics and clicks show where users struggled. They don’t show unspoken confusion, hesitation, or where attention actually went.
Want AI-moderated interviews without an Enterprise contract? Start on Decode’s Free plan: AI-moderated interviews are included.
How to choose a Maze alternative
Getting this choice right pays off. In McKinsey’s study of 300 public companies, the top quartile on its Design Index achieved 32 percentage points higher revenue growth and 56 percentage points higher total returns to shareholders than industry peers over five years.
Start with the methods you run every month, then check them against six things:
Methods: prototype, live site, mobile, card sorting, tree testing and interviews.
Plan gates: which of those methods sit on the plan you can afford.
Signal layer: what the tool captures about each participant (below).
Participants: panel size, B2B reach, bringing your own, and panel cost per response.
Design-tool fit: Figma prototype import, and how results map back to your frames.
Analysis and AI: automated reports, AI follow-up questions, AI moderation and synthesis.
Say, do, feel: the signal layer
Say: survey and interview answers.
Do: clicks, paths and task success.
Feel: how users reacted, measured through facial coding, eye tracking and voice emotion.
Tool | Say | Do | Feel |
|---|---|---|---|
Maze | Yes | Yes: task success, misclicks, heatmaps | No |
Decode | Yes | Yes: task success, clicks, gaze paths | Yes: facial coding, eye tracking, voice emotion |
UserTesting | Yes | Yes: recorded sessions | No |
Lyssna | Yes | Yes: first-click and prototype paths | No |
Optimal Workshop | Yes | Yes: tree and first-click paths | No |
UXtweak | Yes | Yes: session recordings, heatmaps | No |
Useberry | Yes | Yes: user flows, heatmaps | No |
Userlytics | Yes | Yes: UX metrics and recordings | No |
dscout | Yes | Partly: in-context video | No |
A misclick heatmap tells you where users went wrong. The Feel column tells you whether they were confused, frustrated or never noticed the button at all.
Usability tests are small by design. Nielsen Norman Group’s research shows that testing with five users uncovers about 85% of a design’s usability problems, and recommends running many small tests over one big one. With so few sessions per round, each one has to show as much as possible.
The 8 best Maze alternatives
1. Decode by Entropik: best for usability tests that measure emotion and attention
Maze shows where users misclicked. Decode shows where they hesitated, got frustrated or never looked, in the same session as their task data.
Best for: product, UX and design teams testing high-stakes flows such as onboarding, checkout and pricing pages, plus teams testing concepts and creative.
Key features
Prototype tests with Figma import, plus live website and app testing.
Facial coding (90%+ accuracy, 62 expressions), eye tracking (96% accuracy) and voice emotion, captured through a standard webcam.
AI research agents: describe the problem, and a specialist agent picks the method and drafts the study for your review. Tess runs usability tests, Ira runs card sorting and tree testing, and Cole runs concept validation.
AI Moderator for interviews at scale, Insights Hub as your research repository, and Consumer Insights for concept and creative tests.
103M+ participants in 151 markets through Cint and Dynata, or your own users, in 70+ languages.
Pros
AI-moderated interviews are included on the Free plan, with no Enterprise contract needed.
One study covers say, do and feel.
Reports in under an hour once fieldwork is in, with feasibility checked within 24 hours.
Good to know
Webcam and voice capture start only after a participant gives consent.
Enterprise plans are tailored to your research volume. The Free plan covers 100 responses a month.
Pricing: Free plan published; Enterprise is quote-based.
Choose Decode if you need to know how users react to a flow, not only whether they complete it. For the full head-to-head, see our Decode vs Maze comparison.
Test your next prototype with Tess: Book a demo
2. UserTesting: best for enterprise panels and moderated testing
UserTesting is the category’s most established video platform. Its company rebranded as Auros on September 29, 2026, and UserTesting continues as the product brand. UserZoom merged into it in 2023.
Best for: large research teams running high-volume moderated and unmoderated video studies.
Key features: recorded think-aloud sessions, live interviews, a large B2C and B2B contributor network, and AI analysis of sessions.
Pros: panel reach, fast recruitment and a mature highlight-reel workflow.
Cons: an annual, quote-based contract that sits well above Maze’s free tier, and heavier setup. Usage is metered in Session Units.
Pricing: quote only. UserTesting publishes its plan structure and Session Unit rate card, not plan prices.
Maze vs UserTesting: Maze is better for fast, metric-driven prototype tests run by designers. UserTesting is better for recorded video research across many teams. For more options, see our UserTesting alternatives guide.
Choose UserTesting if you need enterprise-scale video research and panel reach.
Read more: UserTesting alternatives guide
3. Lyssna: best all-round self-serve testing with transparent pricing
Lyssna, formerly UsabilityHub, covers most of Maze’s methods on self-serve plans.
Best for: design and research teams that want broad methods without a sales call.
Key features: five-second, first-click and preference tests; prototype tests; card sorting and tree testing; surveys, interviews and a built-in panel.
Pros: card sorting and tree testing from the free plan, published pricing, and interviews on every plan.
Cons: lighter analysis and reporting than enterprise suites, and no emotion or attention signal.
Pricing: Free plan. Growth is $166 a month billed annually ($199 monthly). Panel responses are billed in credits per minute of test length.
Maze vs Lyssna: Lyssna includes more methods below Enterprise. Maze is stronger on Figma prototype metrics.
Choose Lyssna if you hit Maze’s gates and want the same methods self-serve.
4. Optimal Workshop: best for information architecture research
Optimal Workshop is the specialist for how people find things.
Best for: teams designing navigation, labels and content structure.
Key features: card sorting, tree testing and first-click testing at its core, plus prototype tests, live-site testing and interviews.
Pros: the deepest IA analysis on this list, with unlimited seats on its Starter plan.
Cons: prototype testing and visual reporting are less central than in Maze, and Starter allows 5 launched studies a year.
Pricing: Starter is $199 a month billed annually ($2,388 a year). Enterprise is quoted. Recruitment is an add-on.
Maze vs Optimal Workshop: Optimal wins on information architecture. Maze wins on prototype testing.
Choose Optimal Workshop if navigation and IA are your main research questions.
Read More: Dscout alternatives
5. UXtweak: best for broad methods on a small budget
UXtweak packs a wide method range into an inexpensive plan.
Best for: small teams that want many methods without Enterprise pricing.
Key features: prototype, website and mobile testing; card sorting and tree testing; session recording; and a participant panel.
Pros: card sorting and tree testing from the free plan, plus broad method coverage for the price.
Cons: a dense interface, and a smaller brand footprint when you need stakeholder buy-in. Published Business pricing varies by source.
Pricing: Free plan (15 responses a month, 1 active study). Business is reported from about $92 per user a month; figures vary, so confirm the quote.
Choose UXtweak if you need many methods on a tight budget.
6. Useberry: best for affordable Figma prototype testing
Useberry is built around Figma imports and user flows.
Best for: designers who test prototypes often and want low entry pricing.
Key features: prototype and live website tests, user flows, heatmaps, five-second and first-impression tests, and live moderated sessions on paid plans.
Pros: published pricing, a free plan, and strong flow visualization.
Cons: a smaller participant pool, and limited moderated research.
Pricing: Free (10 responses a month). Growth is $67 a month billed yearly (300 responses a month), with extra seats at $30 a month. Enterprise is custom.
Maze vs Useberry: Useberry is the budget pick for prototype flows. Maze has the bigger panel and brand.
Choose Useberry if prototype testing is most of your work and budget matters.
Read More: Lyssna alternatives
7. Userlytics: best for global moderated and unmoderated sessions
Userlytics covers moderated and unmoderated research with an international panel.
Best for: teams testing across markets, on prototypes, websites and native apps.
Key features: moderated and unmoderated sessions, a global panel, card sorting, tree testing and AI UX analysis.
Pros: published per-session pricing and flexible project-based plans.
Cons: the interface feels dated, and Figma prototype analytics are lighter than Maze.
Pricing: from $34 a session on annual Enterprise plans. Pay-as-you-go projects need at least 5 sessions.
Maze vs Userlytics: Userlytics wins on moderated and international sessions. Maze wins on prototype metrics.
Choose Userlytics if you need moderated sessions across markets.
Read More: Useberry alternatives
8. dscout: best for diary studies and in-context mobile research
dscout captures how people use products in their own lives, over time.
Best for: teams researching routines, habits and real-world context.
Key features: diary studies, in-the-moment mobile missions, live interviews and recruiting.
Pros: strong longitudinal research, with participant video built in.
Cons: quote-only pricing, and prototype click analytics are weaker than Maze.
Pricing: quote only.
Maze vs dscout: dscout wins on context over time. Maze wins on fast prototype tests.
Choose dscout if you need behavior in context, not in a test session.
Read more: Suzy alternatives
Maze pricing in 2026: what you can confirm and what you can’t
Maze has a free plan, and everything above it is quoted: its pricing page lists features per plan but no dollar figures. Third-party trackers have reported entry tiers at about $75 to $99 a month in the past, but those figures conflict and aren’t on Maze’s current page. Pricing as of October 2026.
Plan | Price | What’s included |
|---|---|---|
Free | $0 | 1 study a month, 5 seats, essential prototype testing, surveys, and pay-per-use panel credits |
Enterprise | Quote | Custom study volumes, unlimited seats, moderated and AI-moderated interviews, card sorting and tree testing, mobile testing, all Maze AI features, and enterprise security |
Sources: Maze pricing page as summarized by Outmano and Koji.
What drives the cost
Four things set a Maze quote: seats, study volume, panel participants (billed separately in credits), and Enterprise-only features such as interview studies, AI moderation and mobile testing.
Where Decode fits on value
Decode’s paid plans are also quote-based, so this isn’t a cheaper-price claim. It’s a scope comparison. On Maze, AI moderation and interview studies need Enterprise. On Decode, AI-moderated interviews start on the Free plan, and paid plans scale emotion and attention measurement and Insights Hub across your studies.
If you’re pricing Maze Enterprise for AI moderation, get a Decode quote for the same scope.
Which Maze alternative is right for you?
Decision guide: seven Maze limits, one shortlist each
Find the limit you hit on the left, and start your shortlist with the tool on the right. If two apply, let the decision with the most riding on it choose.
Frequently asked questions
1. Can you use Maze for free?
Yes. Maze’s free plan allows 1 study a month with 5 seats, essential prototype testing and surveys. Panel participants are billed in credits.
2. How much does Maze cost?
Maze’s free plan costs nothing, and every paid plan is quoted. Its pricing page shows no dollar figures as of October 2026.
3. Who are Maze’s main competitors?
For enterprise video research, UserTesting. For self-serve testing, Lyssna and UXtweak. For information architecture, Optimal Workshop. For budget prototype tests, Useberry. For usability tests that measure emotion and attention, Decode.
4. Maze vs UserTesting: which is better?
Maze is better for fast, designer-led prototype tests. UserTesting is better for recorded video research and live sessions across many teams.
5. Is Maze’s AI moderator available on every plan?
No. Maze’s AI-moderated studies are only available on Enterprise plans. Decode includes AI-moderated interviews on its Free plan.
6. Is Decode a good Maze alternative?
Yes, especially for high-stakes flows such as onboarding, checkout and pricing pages. Decode runs prototype and usability tests and adds facial coding, eye tracking and voice emotion, so you see how users reacted, not only where they clicked.
7. Can Decode run Figma prototype tests like Maze?
Yes. Decode imports prototypes for usability testing, and runs live website and app tests too, with emotion and attention measured in the same session.
8. is Maze an AI tool?
Maze is a UX research platform with AI features, including an AI moderator, an AI study builder and automated analysis. Most of those AI features sit on its Enterprise plan.
9. What is Maze used for?
Maze is used for prototype and usability testing, mainly by product designers. Teams also use it for surveys, live website tests, card sorting and tree testing.
Find the Maze alternative that fits your research
Hit a plan gate? Lyssna and UXtweak cover card sorting and tree testing from their free plans. Need information architecture? Optimal Workshop. Need enterprise video research? UserTesting. Need to see how users react? That’s Decode.
Related Topic:
