Maze vs Ballpark

Join us as we examine the features, advantages, and possibilities these tools offer, guiding you to make the perfect choice for your design needs.

Table of contents

• Key Insights
• Maze and Ballpark alternative – UXtweak
• Features and Capabilities
• Participant Recruitment and Management capabilities
• Pricing and Plans Comparison
• Customer Reviews
• Support options
• Maze vs Ballpark: Conclusion

Key Insights

👉 Maze provides a simple and efficient approach to UX research, focusing on straightforward survey creation and prototype testing. Despite concerns about participant reliability and limitations in report customization, Maze remains a dependable choice for those valuing ease and speed in their UX research efforts.

👉 With its user-friendly interface and streamlined participant recruitment process, Ballpark simplifies user research activities. However, challenges such as restricted data access and occasional bugs, along with intermittent recording issues, may affect its usability.

👉 Offering a compelling alternative to Maze and Ballpark, UXtweak addresses participant reliability issues found in Maze and avoids bugs encountered in Ballpark, all while maintaining competitive pricing. With a diverse range of testing options, seamless integration with tools like Figma, and efficient participant recruitment, UXtweak provides a comprehensive solution. 

🐝 Get started with UXtweak – sign up for your free account today!

Maze and Ballpark alternative – UXtweak

UXtweak is a user research platform that stands out from Maze and Ballpark. It’s designed to enhance the customer experience for websites and apps, covering everything from prototypes to final products.

What makes UXtweak different is its range of features, like tree testing, first-click testing, five-second tests, and mobile app testing, all available in one platform. It also provides a full suite of recruitment, and participant management tools. With flexible and affordable pricing, UXtweak is a practical choice for UX professionals.

🐝  Check out UXtweak’s demos to watch user interactions and real-time analytics⬇

Try Tree Testing ✔️

Tree Testing

Try Website Usability Testing🔥

Website Testing

Features and Capabilities

The table displays a comparison of features across three research platforms: Maze, Ballpark, and UXtweak.

*UXtweak offers built in features to recruit, schedule, conduct, and analyze user interviews or any other moderated studies.

The table shows that Maze, Ballpark, and UXtweak each offer a wide range of features. Particularly, UXtweak includes all listed features, consistently improving or offering them at a more affordable price compared to its competitors.

Participant Recruitment and Management capabilities

The table details how Maze, Ballpark, and UXtweak handle participant recruitment and management for usability studies.

🐝 Looking to boost conversion rates with valuable insights but lacking access to real users? Consider checking out UXtweak today!

Pricing and Plans Comparison

When selecting a user testing platform, it’s important to factor in pricing. Choose a platform that meets your research requirements without going beyond your budget. Next, let’s explore the affordability of these research tools.

Maze’s Pricing

• Free Plan: Ideal for newcomers to usability testing, this plan is free and includes 1 study per month, 5 seats, and basic features.
• Starter Plan: Priced at $99 per month or $1,188 per year, this plan suits small teams embarking on product research. It provides unlimited blocks, advanced features, and 5 seats.
• Team Plan: Available at $1,250 per month or $15,000 per year, this plan is designed for larger teams aiming to enhance their research capabilities. It offers over 20 studies per year, advanced features, and additional seats.
• Organization Plan: Tailored for large organizations with extensive research needs, this plan features custom pricing, customizable studies and seats, a full suite of features, and strong security measures.

Ballpark’s Pricing

• Starter Plan: Priced at $100 per month (billed yearly), this plan is great for small-scale research and customer feedback. It includes 5 projects, 100 recruitment minutes, unlimited users, unlimited video recording, survey builder, Figma prototype testing, and conditional logic.
• Business Plan: Priced at $184 per month (billed yearly), this plan is designed for large teams that frequently gather feedback. It includes 10 projects, 300 recruitment minutes, download CSV of results, user roles and permissions, invite-only projects, download video responses, and screeners.
• Enterprise Plan: Billed annually with volume-based project pricing, this plan is tailored for big organizations. It offers no cap on projects, custom recruitment packages, Single Sign-On (SSO), payments by bank transfer, dedicated account manager, priority support, uptime SLA, and training and onboarding.

UXtweak’s Pricing

• Starter Plan: Free and designed for simple testing tasks, offering access to all features, one active study, and up to 30 responses monthly.
• Plus Plan: Costs $708 annually ($59 monthly), tailored for solo researchers, including 200 monthly responses, unlimited studies, and data storage for a year.
• Business Plan: Priced at $1,812 annually ($151 monthly), ideal for small to mid-sized companies, with unlimited studies, 1,000 responses per month, and premium support.
• Enterprise Plan: Begins at $5,000 annually, for large-scale project needs, providing unlimited responses and custom support, with variable pricing based on requirements. Subscription options are generally yearly, with monthly payment options for added flexibility. Modifying or terminating plans is straightforward. Visit the UXtweak pricing page for more information on plan specifics.

Customer Reviews

To ensure an unbiased comparison of the three platforms, we’ve gathered data from G2, a leading website for B2B SaaS reviews. G2.com provides a platform for buyers to review, compare ratings, and evaluate software options.

🐝 Note from the author: Pros and cons on this page were formulated by aggregating user feedback from platforms like Capterra.com and G2.com.

Maze

• Pros
  • Easy Survey Creation: Maze offers a user-friendly platform for building surveys, combining ease of use with flexibility.
  • Straightforward Prototype Testing: Quick and simple process to set up prototype tests, including integration with Figma.
  • Diverse Question Formats: Provides a broad selection of question types to accommodate complex inquiries.
• Cons
  • Prototype Stability Issues: Users experience frequent prototype crashes, particularly on mobile devices, which can disrupt the testing process.
  • Limited Report Customization: Customizing reports presents challenges, such as modifying content or adjusting the order of slides, and combining results from different tests.
  • Unclear Heat Maps: The heat map functionality often falls short in offering useful, actionable insights.
  • Test Participant Reliability: Some test participants may not fully engage with the test, leading to early dropouts or incomplete sessions, even despite compensation.

Source: G2.com

Ballpark

• Pros
  • User-Friendly Interface: Ballpark’s interface is intuitive and easy to navigate
  • Efficient Recruitment Feature: Enables fast turnaround times for participant recruitment, streamlining the research process.
  • Continuous Improvement: The ongoing development and enhancement of the platform ensure that it stays up-to-date with evolving user research needs.
• Cons
  • Restricted Data Access: Advanced subscription tiers may require payment for access to analysis and downloads, limiting users’ ability to fully utilize their data.
  • Lack of Transparency in Recruitment: Users may face uncertainty about the recruitment process and the quality of participants, leading to concerns about data reliability.
  • Occasional Bugs: Users may encounter occasional bugs, however, the responsive customer support team is always available to assist with any issues that arise.
  • Occasional Recording Issues: Some recordings may be corrupted, with videos being either not visible or inaudible. This necessitates discarding such data, potentially requiring additional participant recruitment to compensate for the loss.

Source: G2.com

UXtweak

• Pros
  • Diverse Testing Options: Offers a broad selection of testing options at competitive prices, providing great value for user research and advanced analytics.
  • Direct Exports: It provides easy export of data, supporting the case for modifications to website architecture.
  • Expert Customer Support:  The support team consists of experts who quickly resolves user inquiries with practical solutions.
  • Effortless Figma Integration: Enables easy and efficient testing with Figma prototypes.
  • Convenient Participant Recruitment: Allows for the quick recruitment of study participants directly within the application, eliminating the need for additional tools.
  • Hands-on Demos: Offers interactive demos for each tool, giving users a comprehensive understanding of data presentation and tool functionality.

• Cons
  • Navigation Challenges: Navigating certain areas, such as the left menu, can be unintuitive.
  • Intricate Study Setup: The extensive range of options can make study setup appear daunting.
  • Initial Dashboard Familiarity: New users may require time to become comfortable with the dashboard layout, though it becomes more intuitive with use.
    • Note from UXtweak: In response to the learning curve, new tutorial videos are being produced.

Source: G2.com

Support options

Maze

Maze offers a range of informative articles on topics like security, privacy, integrations, and setting up tests. For more personalized assistance, customers can click the ‘Submit a request’ button for support. Furthermore, Maze strives for quick responses to inquiries, although response times may vary with the complexity of the issue.

Ballpark

If users have any questions or encounter issues, they can simply click on the chat bubble located on the website’s bottom right-hand corner to chat with the support team. Whether it’s inquiries about the product, sales-related questions, or reporting an issue like spotting a bug, the support team is available to assist promptly.

UXtweak

UXtweak goes above and beyond standard support by offering consulting services and audits from our expert in-house UX research team. Our dedication to quality service is reflected in our perfect 5/5 Capterra rating. To discover more, visit our UX research consulting services page.

Try UXtweak for free!

Test your assumptions quickly, access qualified audiences worldwide, and receive clear reports - all with competitive pricing.

Register for the free plan

Maze vs Ballpark: Conclusion

Maze provides a straightforward option for UX research, with a focus on simple survey creation and prototype testing. Its user-friendly layout and quick setup appeal to researchers seeking efficiency. However, concerns regarding participant reliability and limitations in customizing reports highlight areas for improvement. Despite these challenges, Maze’s basic features and intuitive interface make it a reliable choice for those prioritizing simplicity and speed in their UX research endeavors.

Ballpark offers a user-friendly interface and efficient participant recruitment process, which are beneficial for streamlining user research processes. However, challenges such as restricted data access and occasional bugs, along with occasional recording issues, may impact its usability. Despite these drawbacks, Ballpark remains a valuable option, especially for smaller teams with simpler research needs.

UXtweak presents a compelling alternative to both Maze and Ballpark, addressing participant reliability concerns seen in Maze and avoiding bugs encountered in Ballpark, all while maintaining lower prices. With its variety of testing options, seamless integration with tools like Figma, and effective participant recruitment, UXtweak offers a well-rounded solution. While new users may require some time to familiarize themselves with its navigation and setup, the platform’s value and feature set makes it a practical option for user testing, combining reliability with affordability and functionality.