Compare Ballpark - User Research and Surveys and UserTesting 
- Users report that UserTesting excels in video interview capabilities, with a score of 8.8, while Ballpark's survey management features, particularly the survey builder, shine with a score of 9.0, making it easier for users to create and distribute surveys effectively.
- Reviewers mention that UserTesting's test feedback and variety are strong points, scoring 8.6 and 8.3 respectively, whereas Ballpark's survey distribution and question types are highly rated at 8.5 and 9.1, indicating a more robust approach to managing survey logistics.
- G2 users highlight UserTesting's quality of support with a score of 9.0, which is slightly lower than Ballpark's 9.2, suggesting that users may find Ballpark's customer service more responsive and helpful.
- Users on G2 indicate that Ballpark's survey customization features, particularly branching/skip logic and multimedia support, are superior with scores of 8.7 and 8.6, compared to UserTesting's lower scores of 6.5 and 6.7, which may limit the flexibility of surveys created on that platform.
- Reviewers say that UserTesting's analytics capabilities, particularly in reporting and insights, are rated lower at 6.8, while Ballpark offers better integration with BI tools and data exporting features, scoring 6.8 and 7.9 respectively, which can enhance data analysis for users.
- Users report that while UserTesting has a strong focus on enterprise-level solutions, Ballpark's mid-market orientation allows for more tailored features that cater to smaller businesses, making it a more accessible option for those not in the enterprise segment.
- 1 active project
- Unlimited users
- Unlimited responses
- Test builder and template gallery
- Demographic filters and screener questions
- Dashboard and metrics
Even though it's recently born, I think it offers a really nice experience in building your user test even if you never used such tools before. It has a really nice integration with Figma that I use a lot and it's wonderful to also be able to set and...
- Recordings don't show the whole UI, so some user behaviors are not visible. - Recording viewing is a bit inconvenient (if I want to check each section separately, it opens a video in a modal; it would be more convenient to view them on the page). -...
We needed a quick solution to capture customer feedback as we redesigned our website before the pandemic hit—and we were so grateful to have UserTesting moving forward. Not only were we able to gather input affordably in a few hours—helping us stay relevant...
The program is slow, and the menu options are hard to find. It takes a few times to remember all the settings and how to adjust them. It's also difficult to copy data out of the tool if you need to access it later. I like that I have the option to use my...
Even though it's recently born, I think it offers a really nice experience in building your user test even if you never used such tools before. It has a really nice integration with Figma that I use a lot and it's wonderful to also be able to set and...
We needed a quick solution to capture customer feedback as we redesigned our website before the pandemic hit—and we were so grateful to have UserTesting moving forward. Not only were we able to gather input affordably in a few hours—helping us stay relevant...
- Recordings don't show the whole UI, so some user behaviors are not visible. - Recording viewing is a bit inconvenient (if I want to check each section separately, it opens a video in a modal; it would be more convenient to view them on the page). -...
The program is slow, and the menu options are hard to find. It takes a few times to remember all the settings and how to adjust them. It's also difficult to copy data out of the tool if you need to access it later. I like that I have the option to use my...
