.png)
Introduction
Choosing the right user testing platform can make a pivotal difference for teams seeking customer insights. Maze and UserTest Pro are two notable options in this space, each with distinct strengths. Maze is well-known as a fast, product-design-centric testing tool – great for rapid prototype validations and quick surveys – but it comes with limitations in depth and localization. UserTest Pro, on the other hand, is a newer platform tailored for Indian UX researchers and product teams, emphasizing rich qualitative feedback and local user access.
In this comparison, we delve into where UserTest Pro stands out against Maze in key areas such as qualitative depth, moderated testing, turnaround speed, panel demographics, pricing, and flexibility. The goal is to help Indian startups, UX teams, and product managers evaluate which platform better suits their needs for high-quality user research.
Qualitative Depth & Video-Based Insights
One of the biggest differences between Maze and UserTest Pro lies in the depth of qualitative feedback they provide. Maze was built with a focus on quick, quantitative results – it excels at gathering click metrics, task completion data, and survey responses rapidly. The trade-off is that Maze can lack the in-depth qualitative insights that come from observing and hearing users during a test. In fact, Maze has been noted to offer only basic analytics, without some of the richer analysis features needed for comprehensive usability studies.
As a result, teams often find Maze less suited for in-depth usability research where understanding the “why” behind user behavior is crucial. For example, Maze’s recording capabilities are limited – it records screen activity for certain task types (like prototype or website tasks) but does not capture an end-to-end session with full audio or video of the tester in many cases. This means much of the context and user emotion behind actions can be missed with Maze.
UserTest Pro is designed to fill that gap by delivering qualitative depth at every step. The platform was built to uncover the “why” behind user actions. In practice, this means that during unmoderated tests, participants on UserTest Pro record their screen and voice as they complete tasks, allowing you to see and hear their thought process in real time. Test sessions result in full video recordings (with audio) that capture user emotions, hesitations, and “aha” moments – not just where they clicked, but why they reacted the way they did.
All recordings are available in a dedicated insights dashboard, so teams can replay critical moments, take timestamped notes, and truly understand user behavior beyond the numbers.
This video-based insight approach gives UserTest Pro users a richer, more human layer of feedback compared to Maze’s largely quantitative output. For Indian design teams who need to empathize deeply with their users’ mindset (often across diverse cultures and languages), this qualitative richness is invaluable. UserTest Pro essentially marries the speed of unmoderated testing with insights typically only seen in interviews, something Maze struggles to do with its limited recordings and analytics.
Moderated Usability Testing Support
Another key differentiator is moderated testing. Maze’s platform is primarily geared towards unmoderated studies – meaning you set up tasks and questions and let users complete them on their own. Out of the box, Maze does not support live moderated sessions for most customers. In fact, features like live interviews or moderated tests are only offered as part of Maze’s highest-tier “Organization” plan (enterprise level).
For a small or mid-sized team using Maze, this effectively means no built-in moderated usability testing; you can’t simply host a live video call with a participant within Maze unless you’ve invested in an expensive plan (or resorted to external tools). This limitation is significant: moderated sessions allow you to ask follow-up questions and probe deeper, but Maze’s typical users have to forgo that or use a separate solution. In contrast, Maze positions itself on automated, scalable testing, and it lacks the personal, human touch of a researcher guiding a session in real time.
UserTest Pro was built with moderated testing as a core feature, acknowledging that some insights only surface through conversation. Right from the free tier, you have access to run one-on-one moderated interviews with participants. The platform makes it effortless to schedule and host live video sessions within the app. During a moderated test on UserTest Pro, you can see and talk to the user directly, ask them to perform tasks, and deviate from the script to follow interesting threads – all of which is recorded for later analysis.
Features like custom discussion guides, live note-taking, and the ability to prompt participants with tasks on-screen are built in. This means a researcher can conduct a usability interview or live prototype walkthrough seamlessly through UserTest Pro. Maze offers nothing comparable in its standard plans. By supporting both unmoderated and moderated approaches, UserTest Pro gives teams the flexibility to choose the right method for their research question. Whether it’s a quick survey or an in-depth interview, UserTest Pro has you covered, whereas Maze users who realize they need moderated feedback often end up looking for another tool.
For Indian startups and UX agencies, having moderated testing handy in UserTest Pro is a huge advantage – you can directly engage with Indian users in real time to understand subtle behaviors or language cues that automated tasks might not reveal.
Fast Result Turnaround (Under 6 Hours)
In fast-paced product cycles, speed of insights is often critical. Both Maze and UserTest Pro recognize this, but UserTest Pro manages to deliver results at a blazing speed tailored to local needs. Maze’s claim to fame has been enabling teams to get feedback in a matter of hours rather than weeks, supporting quick, iterative design cycles.
Its unmoderated testing workflow is indeed fast – you can publish a test (or “maze”) and often see first responses coming in quickly, especially if using their panel. Reviewers praise Maze for being “ideal for quick, iterative feedback” during product development. In practice, Maze can get you initial quantitative results within a day. However, several factors can slow Maze down for certain use cases. If you need niche participants or an exact demographic (e.g. Indian users in a specific age range), Maze’s global panel might take longer to find matches.
And if you wanted to do moderated sessions for deeper insights, Maze doesn’t have a mechanism to expedite that at all (you’d have to recruit and schedule externally, losing the speed advantage). Thus, Maze is very fast for basic studies, but not necessarily for all research needs.
UserTest Pro pushes the envelope on speed by leveraging its on-demand Indian tester network and efficient tooling to deliver insights in hours, not days. The platform’s tagline “real feedback, instant insights” is backed up by performance: when you launch a study on UserTest Pro to its panel, you frequently can complete a round of testing and receive video feedback in under 6 hours. This rapid turnaround is possible because the participant pool is concentrated in India (all within a few time zones), and testers are readily available to take studies during waking hours.
There is no waiting for days to recruit the right users; studies often begin recording responses within minutes of launch. By the same afternoon (if not sooner), you can be watching video clips of real users interacting with your app or site. UserTest Pro’s workflow is optimized to minimize setup time as well – with ready-made templates and screeners – so the overall process from test design to insights is extremely quick.
For an Indian product team working in agile sprints, this speed means you can identify usability issues and iterate within the same workday, a turnaround virtually impossible with traditional lab studies and still challenging with Maze if your target users aren’t readily accessible. In summary, while Maze is no slouch on speed for general testing, UserTest Pro often delivers actionable results even faster, especially for India-focused projects.
Teams don’t have to compromise between speed and quality – UserTest Pro offers both rapid responses and rich feedback. (Notably, even when scheduling moderated interviews, UserTest Pro’s local panel means you could recruit and speak to users in a short timeframe – something that would be logistically much slower if attempted via Maze’s external panel or other means.)
Indian Panel & Rich Demographic Targeting
For any company building digital products in India, having access to relevant test participants is a game-changer. This is an area where Maze’s broad approach and UserTest Pro’s local focus diverge significantly. Maze provides what it calls the “Maze Panel,” essentially a global marketplace of testers aggregated via third-party providers like Prolific and Cint for unmoderated tests (and Respondent for recruiting interview participants).
In theory, Maze’s panel is large – it advertises coverage of 130+ countries with 3 million+ participants worldwide – meaning if you need users from the US, Europe, or elsewhere, Maze can source them. It also claims to offer over 400+ demographic and professional filters for targeting testers. However, when it comes to India, Maze’s globally distributed panel may not give you the depth of local targeting you require. Basic demographic targeting in Maze (country, age, gender) is available on standard plans, so you can filter for Indian participants in Maze.
But more granular criteria – say, focusing on Indian users in Tier-2 cities who prefer Hindi, or users with specific regional behaviors – would likely fall under “advanced targeting” which Maze restricts to its enterprise tier. In other words, to get very specific Indian demographics or behaviors on Maze, you might need a costly upgrade. Moreover, Maze’s panel being third-party means the Indian testers you get might not be vetted specifically for local usability knowledge; they are just part of a generic global pool.
There’s also evidence that Maze’s support for certain test types in the Indian context is lacking – for example, as of late 2024 Maze did not support testing native mobile apps (only prototypes or mobile web), a serious drawback given the dominance of mobile apps among Indian users. In summary, Maze provides breadth of users globally, but not necessarily depth in any single locale. It’s a one-size-fits-all panel, and India happens to be one of many countries in it, with no special customization.
UserTest Pro takes the opposite approach: it is purpose-built around an Indian user panel. In fact, UserTest Pro touts itself as “India’s first UX research platform”, with a rapidly growing, fully vetted panel of Indian testers across Tier-1, Tier-2, and Tier-3 cities. This means when you need feedback from Indian users, you are tapping into a pool that is specifically curated for that region’s diversity.
Currently, UserTest Pro’s panel includes 50,000+ active testers in India – a substantial number covering major metros as well as smaller towns. More importantly, the platform offers rich demographic targeting out-of-the-box to pinpoint the exact users you need.
You can filter and recruit by criteria such as age group, gender, region (city tier or state), preferred language, income band, education level, and other attributes relevant to the Indian market. Need middle-class millennial users in South India, or Hindi-speaking college students, or working professionals in Mumbai? UserTest Pro makes it straightforward to set such criteria and will find matching participants in its panel.
This level of localized targeting is built into the platform without requiring an enterprise deal – it’s available to all users with custom screeners and demographic filters as standard features. The benefit is clear: you get more meaningful insights because your test participants closely mirror your target customer segment in India. Additionally, since these participants are familiar with local apps, languages, and cultural nuances, their feedback is likely to be more contextually relevant.
Many global panels, like Maze’s, might not account for things like regional language proficiency or familiarity with Indian payment apps, etc., whereas UserTest Pro’s panel is inherently aligned with those needs. In short, UserTest Pro offers a localized, India-centric panel that Maze cannot match. For any team whose product is aimed at Indian users, this means faster recruitment, more authentic feedback, and the ability to test with confidence that your sample represents your real audience.
Transparent, Flexible Pricing in INR
Pricing can be a decisive factor for startups and teams operating on tight budgets. Maze and UserTest Pro differ not only in how they price their services, but also in how transparent and local-friendly their pricing is. Maze’s pricing model is typical of many US-based SaaS tools: it’s quoted in USD and structured around subscription tiers plus usage.
Maze offers a free plan but with very steep limitations – it allows only one single test (study) per month on the free tier, which for most serious use cases is not viable. The paid Maze plans start at $99 per month (for the “Starter” plan on monthly billing). The Starter plan permits more studies and some collaboration, but notably it still lacks several features (Maze’s own website notes that things like open card sorting, advanced metrics, and interview studies require upgrading to the custom-priced Organization plan).
For a growing team, this means you might quickly hit a wall with the $99 plan and be forced to negotiate an enterprise contract to get the full feature set. On top of the base subscription cost, Maze charges for participant recruitment separately. If you use the Maze panel to hire testers, you purchase credits – e.g. 50 credits for $250 – which roughly equals $5 per test participant.
Those costs are in addition to your plan fee and can add up quickly (for instance, 20 testers would cost about $100 in credits). Maze does bundle some credits in higher plans, but the specifics aren’t publicly detailed and often require talking to sales. For Indian companies, paying in dollars can be cumbersome due to exchange rates, and Maze’s approach of hiding full pricing details (especially for the enterprise tier or bulk credits) can make budgeting difficult.
In summary, Maze’s pricing, while reasonable by global standards for basic use, can become prohibitive for startups – one G2 reviewer of a similar platform noted that high costs and inability to use their own testers freely were deal-breakers for smaller teams. Maze’s lack of pricing in INR also means Indian customers bear currency fluctuation risks and often don’t get localized pricing benefits.
UserTest Pro offers a markedly different, transparent pricing model in Indian Rupees, designed to be flexible and scalable for teams of all sizes. All plan prices are openly listed on its website in INR, which immediately makes it easier for Indian teams to understand costs without any surprises. For example, UserTest Pro has a Free plan at ₹0/month – this free tier isn’t just a trial; it allows ongoing basic usage (with some limits as we’ll discuss in the BYO section) and even provides access to core features like the panel (on a pay-per-use basis) and moderated sessions.
The paid Starter plan is priced at ₹9,999 per month (approximately $120), and it includes a generous allowance of testing credits and capabilities for a small team. For that flat fee in local currency, a Starter subscriber gets 10 panel credits each month (i.e., the ability to run 10 panel-based tests monthly included), 20 BYOP sessions monthly, support for moderated testing, and up to 5 team seats, among other features.
The pricing page clearly enumerates what’s in each plan, and even offers a discounted annual rate and an enterprise “Let's Talk” option for custom needs. The key point is clarity: Indian users know exactly what they’ll pay in INR and what they’ll get, without needing to contact a sales representative for basic information. Moreover, UserTest Pro’s model is flexible – even on the Free or Starter plan, if you need more participants beyond your monthly credits, you can simply purchase extra panel credits as needed (pay-as-you-go).
This avoids forcing an upgrade just because one project requires a few more testers. In contrast, Maze’s structure might force you to a higher plan for additional features or volumes, whereas UserTest Pro lets you scale gradually. Another advantage is that UserTest Pro’s pricing already includes things like incentives and taxes in the INR cost, so there are no hidden fees; it’s very much what-you-see-is-what-you-pay.
This level of transparency and local pricing is a breath of fresh air for Indian startups that often struggle with the opaque, dollar-denominated pricing of global tools. Overall, when it comes to pricing, UserTest Pro is more startup-friendly and budget-conscious. It provides a predictable cost structure, significant value (considering it includes both moderated and unmoderated capabilities), and the ability to leverage the platform even for free in a limited yet meaningful capacity – all in local currency. Maze, while powerful, might end up costing more in the long run, especially if you require its advanced features or lots of panel participants, and dealing in USD adds an extra layer of complexity for Indian organizations.
Key Feature | UserTest Pro | Maze |
|---|---|---|
Qualitative Insights | Full screen + voice recordings with rich context | Limited to screen recordings, lacks audio-based depth |
Moderated Testing | Included in all plans, with built‑in live video interviews | Only available on enterprise plan |
Indian Panel & Targeting | Purpose‑built India panel with filters for city, language, income, etc. | No dedicated India panel; limited demographic control |
Bring‑Your‑Own‑Participant (BYOP) | Free allowance (5 sessions/month) plus low overage rates (₹500/session) | Allowed but no free sessions; tied to plan limits |
Pricing Transparency | INR‑based, published plans with clear per‑test and subscription rates | USD pricing, opaque tiers, requires sales contact |
BYO Participants and Generous Free Usage
For teams that already have access to their own users or customer community, the ability to “bring your own participants” (BYOP) for testing can be important. Both Maze and UserTest Pro support BYO participants, but the extent and cost of using this feature differ significantly. Maze does allow you to run tests with your own recruited users without charging per participant – in other words, if you have a list of users to send a Maze test link to, Maze won’t bill you extra for those responses. This is a positive, as noted by users: you can use your own panel on Maze “for free” in terms of participant cost. However, Maze still imposes limits through its platform plans.
Maze’s free plan is capped at one study per month. That cap applies regardless of whether the participants are from Maze’s panel or your own. This means even if you have a ready pool of users and you don’t need Maze to recruit anyone, on the free tier you can only run a single test each month – which is a severe restriction for continuous research. If you want to do more frequent BYO testing on Maze, you’ll need to be on a paid plan (Starter or above).
The paid plans remove the one-study limit, so you can in theory run unlimited studies with your own users. But remember, the Starter plan still limits some features and seats, so a growing team might eventually need the higher tier. Also, Maze doesn’t provide any special incentives or credits for using your own users; it simply doesn’t charge you per user. In summary, Maze’s stance on BYO participants is that it’s allowed, but not especially facilitated – the free tier is too limited for regular use, and beyond that you are essentially paying for the platform’s usage in dollars.
There is no concept of “free BYO session allotment” in Maze’s pricing; you just make use of the subscription you have. Maze has introduced a feature called “Reach” to help engage your own audience (via links or in-product prompts), which is useful, but again, the volume of usage will tie back to your base plan.
UserTest Pro, by contrast, actively encourages teams to bring their own participants by offering a generous free usage policy and seamless integration of those sessions. On the Free plan (₹0), UserTest Pro grants you up to 5 BYO sessions per month, refilled each month, at no charge.
This means even without paying a rupee, you can run five usability tests or interviews with your own customers or colleagues every month – a capacity that is more than sufficient for many early-stage startups to gather continuous feedback. Those sessions include all the platform’s features (you’ll get the video recordings, analysis tools, etc. for those tests just as you would with panel testers). If you need to do more BYO studies, the Starter plan increases the allowance to 20 BYO sessions per month, and the Enterprise plan lifts it to unlimited BYO testing.
The generosity here is notable: UserTest Pro essentially does not charge extra for BYO usage even on modest paid plans – you’re mainly paying when you need to use their panel. This is a very flexible setup, since it means you can reserve your paid credits for when you truly need outside participants, and otherwise leverage your own user base extensively without incurring costs. Another benefit is how UserTest Pro integrates BYO participants into the workflow.
The platform provides an instant test link or code generator to easily invite your own users to a study (for example, you can drop a link in an email or WhatsApp group and people can join the test in seconds). There’s no technical friction or extension download required – a big plus when testing with stakeholders or less tech-savvy users. All the data from those BYOP sessions (including full video/audio recordings, task performances, survey answers, etc.) is captured in the same dashboard alongside panel-based sessions. This means whether the feedback came from your loyal customers or from strangers on the panel, you can analyze it together and compare results easily.
In essence, UserTest Pro makes BYO testing a first-class citizen, not an afterthought.
For Indian organizations, this approach translates to substantial cost savings and control. If you have a community of beta users, you can run iterative tests every week without paying anything until you decide you need a broader audience. Even a product manager at a startup can utilize the free 5 sessions monthly to continually validate design tweaks with internal team members or existing users – something not feasible with Maze’s free plan due to its one-test limit.
By lowering the barrier to using one’s own participants, UserTest Pro helps instill a culture of frequent testing. Maze, while it doesn’t penalize BYO usage financially, doesn’t go out of its way to support it with additional free capacity or integrated features in the same way.
The bottom line: UserTest Pro’s generous BYOP policy and free allotment empower teams to get feedback from their own users easily and cheaply, making regular research a sustainable practice even on a small budget. This is yet another area where UserTest Pro proves to be a better fit for teams in India that need flexibility and value.
Conclusion: Why UserTest Pro is the Superior Choice for Indian Teams
Maze and UserTest Pro each serve the broad goal of user-centered design, but as we’ve seen, they do so with different priorities. Maze is a solid tool for quick, automated testing – it integrates nicely with design workflows and provides speedy, quantitative feedback suitable for general prototype validation.
However, Maze’s strengths in rapid, broad-strokes research come with significant trade-offs: a lack of built-in moderated testing, limited qualitative depth (no live voice in most studies and only partial screen recordings), and no specialization for any particular locale or user segment. It’s a one-size-fits-all solution that might work for small-scale surveys or A/B tests, but it can fall short for teams that need richer insights or targeted local inputs – exactly the needs of many Indian product teams.
To get more out of Maze (better targeting, interviews, etc.), organizations often face steep pricing and upgrades, which isn’t ideal for budget-conscious startups.
UserTest Pro emerges as the more well-rounded and locally optimized platform, especially for Indian UX researchers, product managers, startups, and design teams who prioritize high-quality user feedback. It combines the best of both worlds: the speed and scalability of unmoderated testing with the depth and human-centric insight of moderated research. With UserTest Pro, you’re not just getting click data – you’re getting voices, faces, and real expressions of your users on video, allowing you to truly understand user behavior and emotions.
The ability to conduct moderated usability tests or interviews seamlessly on the platform gives teams a powerful tool to probe “why” users do what they do, something Maze cannot offer in any practical way for most users. Moreover, UserTest Pro’s entire design is tailored to the Indian market: from an extensive India-specific tester panel (with robust demographic targeting), to pricing in rupees that is transparent and affordable, to features like support for testing mobile apps (critical in India’s mobile-first environment) and bilingual moderation, etc.
This local emphasis means the insights you gather are immediately relevant to your market, without the noise or irrelevance that might come from a more globally oriented tool.
Importantly, UserTest Pro lowers the barriers to conducting user research. Its free plan and BYO participant support allow even a two-person startup to start testing with real users (perhaps your first few customers) at no cost, building a habit of evidence-based design from day one. As your needs grow, the platform scales with you in a flexible manner, all while maintaining a formal, high-quality approach to data collection.
In contrast, teams using Maze in India might hit limitations when they try to drill deeper or localize their studies, and they could end up with shallow findings if they stick to Maze’s default capabilities.
In conclusion, UserTest Pro is the superior choice for Indian teams that value deep, actionable user insights and local relevance in their UX research. Maze is a capable tool for quick checks and broad surveys, but if your goal is to build products that resonate on a human level with Indian users, you need a platform that delivers rich qualitative feedback, offers the personal touch of moderated sessions, and connects you with the right participants quickly and affordably.
UserTest Pro meets these needs in a way Maze simply doesn’t. It turns user research into an unfair advantage by combining speed with quality. For Indian UX researchers, product managers, and design teams aiming to create user-centric products, UserTest Pro provides the confidence that you’re hearing the true voice of your users and doing so with efficiency and ease. The verdict from this comparison is clear: when it comes to UserTest Pro vs. Maze, UserTest Pro stands out as the better-suited, more comprehensive solution for those who refuse to compromise on insight and impact.