5 Alternatives to Askable for User Research and Participant Recruitment

When evaluating tools for user testing and participant recruitment, Askable often appears on the shortlist, especially for teams based in Australia and New Zealand. But in 2025, many researchers are finding Askable’s limitations increasingly difficult to work around: restricted study volume, inconsistent participant quality, and new pricing that limits flexibility.

‍

If you’re exploring Askable alternatives that offer more scalability, higher data quality, and global reach, here are five strong options.

‍

‍

1. Optimal: Best Overall Alternative for Scalable, AI-Powered Research 

‍

Optimal is a comprehensive user insights platform supporting the full research lifecycle, from participant recruitment to analysis and reporting. Unlike Askable, which has historically focused on recruitment, Optimal unifies multiple research methods in one platform, including prototype testing, card sorting, tree testing, and AI-assisted interviews.

‍

Why teams switch from Askable to Optimal

‍

1. You can only run one study at a time in Askable

‍Optimal removes that bottleneck, letting you launch multiple concurrent studies across teams and research methods.

2. Askable’s new pricing limits flexibility 

Optimal offers scalable plans with unlimited seats, so teams only pay for what they need.

3. Askable’s participant quality has dropped

Optimal provides access to over 100+ million verified participants worldwide, with strong fraud-prevention and screening systems that eliminate low-effort or AI-assisted responses.

‍

Additional advantages

‍

• End-to-end research tools in one workspace
• AI-powered insight generation that tags and summarizes automatically
• Enterprise-grade reliability with decade-long market trust
• Dedicated onboarding and SLA-backed support
  
  

‍

Best for: Teams seeking an enterprise-ready, scalable research platform that eliminates the operational constraints of Askable.

‍

‍

‍

2. UserTesting: Best for Video-Based Moderated Studies

‍

‍UserTesting remains one of the most established platforms for moderated and unmoderated usability testing. It excels at gathering video feedback from participants in real time.

‍

Pros:

• Large participant pool with strong demographic filters
• Supports moderated sessions and live interviews
• Integrations with design tools like Figma and Miro

‍

Cons:

• Higher cost at enterprise scale
• Less flexible for survey-driven or unmoderated studies compared with Optimal
• The UI has become increasingly complex and buggy as UserTesting has been expanding their platform through acquisitions such as UserZoom and Validately.
  ‍

‍

Best for: Companies prioritizing live, moderated usability sessions.

‍

‍

‍

3. Maze: Best for Product Teams Using Figma Prototypes

‍

‍Maze offers seamless Figma integration and focuses on automating prototype-testing workflows for product and design teams.

‍

‍

Pros:

• Excellent Figma and Adobe XD integration
• Automated reporting
• Good fit for early-stage design validation

‍

Cons:

• Limited depth for qualitative research
• Smaller participant pool
  
  

‍

Best for: Design-first teams validating prototypes and navigation flows.

‍

‍

‍

4. Lyssna (formerly UsabilityHub): Best for Fast Design Feedback

‍

‍Lyssna focuses on quick-turn, unmoderated studies such as preference tests, first-click tests, and five-second tests.

‍

Pros:

• Fast turnaround
• Simple, intuitive interface
• Affordable for smaller teams

‍

Cons:

• Limited participant targeting options
• Narrower study types than Askable

‍

Best for: Designers and researchers running lightweight validation tests.

‍

‍

‍

5. Dovetail: Best for Research Repository and Analysis

‍

‍‍Dovetail is primarily a qualitative data repository rather than a testing platform. It’s useful for centralizing and analyzing insights from research studies conducted elsewhere.

‍

Pros:

• Strong tagging and note-taking features
• Centralized research hub for large teams

‍

Cons:

• Doesn’t recruit participants or run studies
• Requires manual uploads from other tools like Askable or UserTesting
  
  

‍

Best for: Research teams centralizing insights from multiple sources.

‍

‍

‍

Final Thoughts on Alternatives to Askable

‍

If your goal is simply to recruit local participants, Askable can still meet basic needs. But if you’re looking to scale research in your organization, integrate testing and analysis, and automate insights, Optimal stands out as the best long-term investment. Its blend of global reach, AI-powered analysis, and proven enterprise support makes it the natural next step for growing research teams. You can try Optimal for free here.

‍

Definition of a website footer

‍

The footer of a website sits at the very bottom of every single web page and contains links to various types of content on your website. It’s an often overlooked component of a website, but it plays several important roles in your information architecture (IA) – it’s not just some extra thing that gets plonked at the bottom of every page.

Getting your website footer right matters!

The footer communicates to your website visitors that they’ve reached the bottom of the page and it’s also a great place to position important content links that don’t belong anywhere else – within reason. A website footer is not a dumping ground for random content links that you couldn’t find a home for, however there are some content types that are conventionally accessed via the footer e.g., privacy policies and copyright information just to name a few.

Lastly, from a usability and navigation perspective, website footers can serve as a bit of a safety net for lost website visitors. Users might be scrolling and scrolling trying to find something and the footer might be what catches them and guides them back to safety before they give up on your website and go elsewhere. Footers are a functional and important part of your overall IA, but also have their own architecture too.

Read on to learn about the types of content links that might be found in a footer, see some real life examples and discuss some approaches that you might take when testing your footer to ensure that your website is supporting your visitors from top to bottom.

‍

‍

What belongs in a website footer

‍

Deciding which content links belong in your footer depends entirely on your website. The type of footer, its intent and content depends on its audience of your customers, potential customers and more — ie your website visitors. Every website is different, but here’s a list of links to content types that might typically be found in a footer.

• Legal content that may include: Copyright information, disclaimer, privacy policy, terms or use or terms of service – always seek appropriate advice on legal content and where to place it!
• Your site map
• Contact details including social media links and live chat or chat bot access
• Customer service content that may include: shipping and delivery details, order tracking, returns, size guides, pricing if you’re a service and product recall information.
• Website accessibility details and ways to provide feedback 
• ‘About Us’ type content that may include: company history, team or leadership team details, the careers page and more 
• Key navigational links that also appear in the main navigation menu that is presented to website visitors when they first land on the page (e.g. at the top or the side)

‍

‍

Website footer examples

‍

Let’s take a look at three diverse real life examples of website footers.

‍

IKEA US
‍

‍

IKEA’s US website has an interesting double barrelled footer that is also large and complex – a ‘fat footer’ as it’s often called – and its structure changes as you travel deeper into the IA. The below image taken from the IKEA US home page shows two clear blocks of text separated by a blue horizontal line. Above the line we have the heading of ‘All Departments’ with four columns showing product categories and below the line there are seven clear groups of content links covering a broad range of topics including customer service information, links that appear in the top navigation menu and careers. At the very bottom of the footer there are social media links and the copyright information for the website.
‍

‍

As expected, IKEA’s overall website IA is quite large, and as a website visitor clicks deeper into the IA, the footer starts to change. On the product category landing pages, the footer is mostly the same but with a new addition of some handy breadcrumbs to aid navigation (see below image).
‍

‍

When a website visitor travels all the way down to the individual product page level, the footer changes again. In the below image found on the product page for a bath mat, while the blue line and everything below it is still there, the ‘All Departments’ section of the footer has been removed and replaced with non-clickable text on the left hand side that reads as ‘More Bath mats’ and a link on the right hand side that says ‘Go to Bath mats’. Clicking on that link takes the website visitor back to the page above.
‍

‍

Overall, evolving the footer content as the website visitor progresses deeper into the IA is an interesting approach - as the main page content becomes more focussed as does the footer while still maintaining multiple supportive safety net features.

‍

‍

M.A.C Cosmetics US
‍

The footer for the US website of this well known cosmetics brand has a four part footer. At first it appears to just have three parts as shown in the image below: a wide section with seven content link categories covering a broad range of content types as the main part with a narrow black strip on either end of it making up the second and third parts. The strip above has loyalty program and live chat links and the strip below contains mostly links to legal content.
‍

When a website visitor hovers over the ‘Join our loyalty program’ call to action (CTA) in that top narrow strip, the hidden fourth part of the footer which is slightly translucent pulls up like a drawer and sits directly above the strip capping off the top of the main section (as shown in the below image). This section contains more information about the loyalty program and contains further CTAs to join or sign in. It disappears when the cursor is moved away from the hover CTA or it can be collapsed manually via the arrow in the top right hand corner of this fourth part. It’s an interesting and unexpected interaction to have with a footer, but it adds to the overall consistent and cohesive experience of this website because it feels like the footer is an active participant in that experience.
‍

‍
‍

Domino’s Pizza US
‍

Domino’s Pizza’s US website has a reasonably flat footer in terms of architecture but it occupies as much space as a more complex or deeper footer. As shown in the image below, its content links are presented horizontally over three rows on the left hand side of the footer and these links are visually separated by forward slashes. It also displays social media links and some advertising content on the right hand side. The most interesting feature of this footer is the large paragraph of text titled ‘Legal Stuff’ below the links. Delightfully it uses direct, clear and plain language and even includes a note about delivery charges not including tips and to ‘Please reward your driver for awesomeness’.
‍

‍

‍

How to test a website footer

‍

Like every other part of your website, the only way you’re going to know if your footer is supporting your website visitors is if you test it with them. When testing a website’s IA overall, the footer is often excluded. This might be because we want to focus on other areas first or maybe it’s because testing everything at once has the potential to be overwhelming for our research participants.
‍

Testing a footer is fairly easy thing to do and there’s no right or wrong approach – it really does depend on where you are up to in your project, the resources you have available to you and the size and complexity of the footer itself!
‍

If you’re designing a footer for a new website there’s a few ways you might approach ensuring your footer is best supporting your website visitors. If you’re planning to include a large and complex footer, it’s a good idea to start by running an open card sort just on those footer links. An open card sort will help you understand how your website visitors expect those content links in your footer to be grouped and what they think those groups should be called.
‍

If you’re redesigning an existing website, you might first run a tree test on the existing footer to benchmark test it and to pinpoint the exact issues. You might tree test just the footer in the study or you might test the whole website including the footer. Optimal's tree testing is really flexible and you can tree test just a small section of an IA or you can do the whole thing in one go to find out where people are getting lost in the structure. Your approach will depend on your project and what you already know so far. If you suspect there may be issues with the website’s footer, for example, if no one is visiting it and/or you’ve been receiving customer service requests from visitors to help them find content that only lives in the footer,  it would be a good idea to consider isolating it for testing. This will help you avoid any competition between the footer and the rest of your IA as well as any potential confusion that may arise from duplicated tree branches (i.e. when your footer contains duplicate labels).
‍

If you’re short on time and there aren’t any known issues with the footer prior to a redesign, you might tree test the entire IA in your benchmark study, iterate your design and then along with everything else, include testing activities for your footer in your moderated usability testing plan. You might include a usability testing scenario or question that requires your participants to complete a task that involves finding content that can only be found in the footer (e.g., shipping information if it’s an ecommerce website). Also keep a close eye on how your participants are moving around the page in general and see if/when the footer comes into play – is it helping people when they’re lost and scrolling? Or is it going unnoticed? If so, why and so on. Talk to your research participants like you would about any other aspect of your website to find out what’s going on there. When resources are tight, use your best judgement and choose the research approach that’s best for your situation, we’ve all had moments where we’ve had to be pragmatic and do our best with what we have.
‍

When you’re at a stage in your design process where you have a visual design or concept for your footer, you could also run a first-click test. First-click tests are quick and easy and will help you determine how your website visitors are faring once they reach your footer and if they can identify the correct content link to complete their task. Studies can be run remotely or in person and just like the rest of the tools in Optimal's user research platform, are super quick to run and great for reaching website visitors all over the world simply by sharing a link to the study.

Maze has built a strong reputation for rapid prototype testing and quick design validation. For product teams focused on speed and Figma integration, it offers an appealing workflow. But as research programs mature and teams need deeper insights to inform strategic decisions, many discover that Maze's limitations create friction. Platform reliability issues, restricted research depth, and a narrow focus on unmoderated testing leave gaps that growing teams can't afford.

‍

If you're exploring Maze alternatives that deliver both speed and substance, here are seven platforms worth evaluating.

‍

‍

Why Look for a Maze Alternative?

‍

Teams typically start searching for Maze alternatives when they encounter these constraints:

‍

• ‍Limited research depth: Maze does well at at surface-level feedback on prototypes but struggles with the qualitative depth needed for strategic product decisions. Teams often supplement Maze with additional tools for interviews, surveys, or advanced analysis.
  ‍
• ‍Platform stability concerns: Users report inconsistent reliability, particularly with complex prototypes and enterprise-scale studies. When research drives major business decisions, platform dependability becomes critical.
  ‍
• ‍Narrow testing scope: While Maze handles prototype validation well, it lacks sophistication in other research methods and the ability to do deep analytics. These are all things that comprehensive product development requires. 
  ‍‍
• Enterprise feature gaps: Organizations with compliance requirements, global research needs, or complex team structures find Maze's enterprise offerings lacking. SSO, role-based access and dedicated support come only at the highest tiers, if at all.
  ‍‍
• Surface-level analysis and reporting capabilities: Once an organization reaches a certain stage, they start needing in-depth analysis and results visualizations. Maze currently only provides basic metrics and surface-level analysis without the depth required for strategic decision-making or comprehensive user insight.

‍

‍

What to Consider When Choosing a Maze Alternative

‍

Before committing to a new platform, evaluate these key factors:

‍

• ‍Range of research methods: Does the platform support your full research lifecycle? Look for tools that handle prototype testing, information architecture validation, live site testing, surveys, and qualitative analysis.
  ‍‍
• Analysis and insight generation: Surface-level metrics tell only part of the story. Platforms with AI-powered analysis, automated reporting, and sophisticated visualizations transform raw data into actionable business intelligence.
  ‍‍
• Participant recruitment capabilities: Consider both panel size and quality. Global reach, precise targeting, fraud prevention, and verification processes determine whether your research reflects real user perspectives.
  ‍‍
• Enterprise readiness: For organizations with compliance requirements, evaluate security certifications (SOC 2, ISO), SSO support, role-based permissions, and dedicated account management.
  ‍‍
• Platform reliability and support: Research drives product strategy. Choose platforms with proven stability, comprehensive documentation, and responsive support that ensures your research operations run smoothly.
  ‍‍
• Scalability and team collaboration: As research programs grow, platforms should accommodate multiple concurrent studies, cross-functional collaboration, and shared workspaces without performance degradation.

‍

‍

Top Alternatives to Maze

‍

‍

1. Optimal: Comprehensive User Insights Platform That Scales

‍

‍

All-in-one research platform from discovery through delivery

‍

Optimal delivers end-to-end research capabilities that teams commonly piece together from multiple tools. Optimal supports the complete research lifecycle: participant recruitment, prototype testing, live site testing, card sorting, tree testing, surveys, and AI-powered interview analysis.

‍

Where Optimal outperforms Maze:

‍

Broader research methods: Optimal provides specialized tools and in-depth analysis and visualizations that Maze simply doesn't offer. Card sorting and tree testing validate information architecture before you build. Live site testing lets you evaluate actual websites and applications without code, enabling continuous optimization post-launch. This breadth means teams can conduct comprehensive research without switching platforms or compromising study quality.

‍

Deeper qualitative insights: Optimal's new Interviews tool revolutionizes how teams extract value from user research. Upload interview videos and AI automatically surfaces key themes, generates smart highlight reels with timestamped evidence, and produces actionable insights in hours instead of weeks. Every insight comes with supporting video evidence, making stakeholder buy-in effortless.

‍

AI-powered analysis: While Maze provides basic metrics and surface-level reporting, Optimal delivers sophisticated AI analysis that automatically generates insights, identifies patterns, and creates export-ready reports. This transforms research from data collection into strategic intelligence.

‍

Global participant recruitment: Access to over 100 million verified participants across 150+ countries enables sophisticated targeting for any demographic or market. Optimal's fraud prevention and quality assurance processes ensure participant authenticity, something teams consistently report as problematic with Maze's smaller panel.

‍

Enterprise-grade reliability: Optimal serves Fortune 500 companies including Netflix, LEGO, and Apple with SOC 2 compliance, SSO, role-based permissions, and dedicated enterprise support. The platform was built for scale, not retrofitted for it.

‍

Best for: UX researchers, design and product teams, and enterprise organizations requiring comprehensive research capabilities, deeper insights, and proven enterprise reliability.

‍

‍

2. UserTesting: Enterprise Video Feedback at Scale

‍

‍

Established platform for moderated and unmoderated usability testing

‍

UserTesting remains one of the most recognized platforms for gathering video feedback from participants. It excels at capturing user reactions and verbal feedback during task completion.

‍

Strengths: Large participant pool with strong demographic filters, robust support for moderated sessions and live interviews, integrations with Figma and Miro.

‍

Limitations: Significantly higher cost at enterprise scale, less flexible for navigation testing or survey-driven research compared to platforms like Optimal, increasingly complex UI following multiple acquisitions (UserZoom, Validately) creates usability issues.

‍

Best for: Large enterprises prioritizing high-volume video feedback and willing to invest in premium pricing for moderated session capabilities.

‍

‍

3. Lookback: Deep Qualitative Discovery

‍

‍

Live moderated sessions with narrative insights

‍

Lookback specializes in live user interviews and moderated testing sessions, emphasizing rich qualitative feedback over quantitative metrics.

‍

Strengths: Excellent for in-depth qualitative discovery, strong recording and note-taking features, good for teams prioritizing narrative insights over metrics.

‍

Limitations: Narrow focus on moderated research limits versatility, lacks quantitative testing methods, smaller participant pool requires external recruitment for most studies.

‍

Best for: Research teams conducting primarily qualitative discovery work and willing to manage recruitment separately.

‍

‍

4. PlaybookUX: Bundled Recruitment and Testing

‍

‍

Built-in participant panel for streamlined research

‍

PlaybookUX combines usability testing with integrated participant recruitment, appealing to teams wanting simplified procurement.

‍

Strengths: Bundled recruitment reduces vendor management, straightforward pricing model, decent for basic unmoderated studies.

‍

Limitations: Limited research method variety compared to comprehensive platforms, smaller panel size restricts targeting options, basic analysis capabilities require manual synthesis.

‍

Best for: Small teams needing recruitment and basic testing in one package without advanced research requirements.

‍

‍

5. Lyssna: Rapid UI Pattern Validation

‍

‍

Quick-turn preference testing and first-click studies

‍

Lyssna (formerly UsabilityHub) focuses on fast, lightweight tests for design validation; preference tests, first-click tests, and five-second tests.

‍

Strengths: Fast turnaround for simple validation, intuitive interface, affordable entry point for small teams.

‍

Limitations: Limited scope beyond basic design feedback, small participant panel with quality control issues, lacks sophisticated analysis or enterprise features.

‍

Best for: Designers running lightweight validation tests on UI patterns and early-stage concepts.

‍

‍

6. Hotjar: Behavioral Analytics and Heatmaps

‍

‍

Quantitative behavior tracking with qualitative context

‍

Hotjar specializes in on-site behavior analytics; heatmaps, session recordings, and feedback widgets that reveal how users interact with live websites.

‍

Strengths: Valuable behavioral data from actual site visitors, seamless integration with existing websites, combines quantitative patterns with qualitative feedback.

‍

Limitations: Focuses on post-launch observation rather than pre-launch validation, doesn't support prototype testing or information architecture validation, requires separate tools for recruitment-based research.

‍

Best for: Teams optimizing live websites and wanting to understand actual user behavior patterns post-launch.

‍

‍

7. UserZoom: Enterprise Research at Global Scale

‍

‍

Comprehensive platform for large research organizations

‍

UserZoom (now part of UserTesting) targets enterprise research programs requiring governance, global reach, and sophisticated study design.

‍

Strengths: Extensive research methods and study templates, strong enterprise governance features, supports complex global research operations.

‍

Limitations: Significantly higher cost than Maze or comparable platforms, complex interface with steep learning curve, integration with UserTesting creates platform uncertainty.

‍

Best for: Global research teams at large enterprises with complex governance requirements and substantial research budgets.

‍

‍

Final Thoughts: Choosing the Right Maze Alternative

‍

Maze serves a specific need: rapid prototype validation for design-focused teams. But as research programs mature and insights drive strategic decisions, teams need platforms that deliver depth alongside speed.

‍

Optimal stands out by combining Maze's prototype testing capabilities with the comprehensive research methods, AI-powered analysis, and enterprise reliability that growing teams require. Whether you're validating information architecture through card sorting, testing live websites without code, or extracting insights from interview videos, Optimal provides the depth and breadth that transforms research from validation into strategic advantage.

‍

If you're evaluating Maze alternatives, consider what your research program needs six months from now, not just today. The right platform scales with your team, deepens your insights, and becomes more valuable as your research practice matures.

‍

Try Optimal for free to experience how comprehensive research capabilities transform user insights from validation into strategic intelligence.