Transparency alternatives to UserTesting
Other User research and testing vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at UserTesting. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 36 that differ from UserTesting on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
UserTesting has 7 gaps in what we could measure: Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at UserTesting” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at UserTesting | Found at UserTesting, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| User Interviewsuserinterviews.comSee also Transparency alternatives to User Interviews | 83/100 | 6 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +3 | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Attention Insightattentioninsight.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Attention Insight | 57/100 | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | 3 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Great Questiongreatquestion.coSee also Transparency alternatives to Great Question | 43/100 | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history | Compare |
| Ballparkballparkhq.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ballpark | 48/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named | 2 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list | Compare |
| Graingrain.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Grain | 48/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named | 2 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list | Compare |
| UXArmyuxarmy.comSee also Transparency alternatives to UXArmy | 39/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history | Compare |
| Useberryuseberry.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Useberry | 35/100 | 3 Public pricing, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change | 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | Compare |
| Condenscondens.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Condens | 43/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Sprigsprig.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Sprig | 43/100 | 2 Data location stated, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Aureliusaureliuslab.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Aurelius | 39/100 | 2 Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Heliohelio.zurb.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Helio | 39/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Userbrainuserbrain.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Userbrain | 35/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history | Compare |
Only criteria we could measure for both are counted. Where we could measure one and not the other, the row is silent: that would be a statement about our measurement, not about either vendor. Every single result with its source is on the two profiles.