UXtweak
A full UX research suite: card sorting, tree testing, usability studies, and recordings
UXtweak is a user research platform that bundles the methods a UX team actually uses into one subscription: moderated and unmoderated usability testing, card sorting, tree testing, first-click testing, preference tests, five-second tests, surveys, and session recording with heatmaps. It includes its own participant recruiting panel and is priced per study volume with a permanent free plan.
Overview
Most conversion tools tell you what happened on your existing site. UXtweak is built for the questions that come before that: whether your navigation labels match how people categorize things, whether users can find a page in your information architecture, and whether a prototype works before it is built. That places it in the research half of the discipline, alongside behavior analytics rather than in competition with it.
The breadth is the point. Card sorting and tree testing are usually sold by specialist vendors at specialist prices, and a small team wanting to run one card sort a quarter cannot justify a dedicated subscription. UXtweak puts those methods in the same account as usability testing, preference testing, surveys, and website session recording, so a designer can pick the right method for the question instead of the method they happen to own a license for.
It is a European product, built in Slovakia, with a self-serve model and a free plan that allows small studies indefinitely. The recruiting panel matters as much as the tooling: for many teams the hard part of research is finding participants, and having recruitment, incentives, and analysis in one place removes the usual reason studies get postponed. The trade-off is that each individual method is somewhat less refined than the specialist tool devoted to it, and the analysis outputs, while good, are less opinionated than what a dedicated moderation platform produces.
Best for
Product designers, UX researchers, and small product teams who need real research methods, especially information architecture testing, without buying three specialist subscriptions or a full enterprise research platform.
Not the right fit for
- Teams that only want heatmaps and recordings on a live site, where cheaper single-purpose tools suffice.
- Marketing organizations looking for A/B testing and conversion experimentation, which UXtweak does not provide.
- Large enterprises needing a research operations platform with panel governance, repositories, and heavy compliance apparatus.
- Researchers who require the deepest moderated interview tooling, where dedicated platforms are more refined.
- Native mobile app testing at depth, though prototype and web-based testing covers many mobile scenarios.
How it works
- 1
You choose a study type from the suite, usability testing on a live site or prototype, card sort, tree test, first-click, preference, five-second, or survey, and build the tasks in a guided editor. Website studies work against your real site through a proxy layer, so no code changes are needed to test an existing experience.
- 2
Participants come from three routes: your own audience via a share link or on-site recruiter widget, the UXtweak panel with demographic and professional targeting, or an external panel you already use. The on-site recruiter is particularly useful because it intercepts real visitors rather than professional testers.
- 3
Sessions are captured with screen, click, and where permitted webcam and audio, then analyzed with method-appropriate outputs: dendrograms and similarity matrices for card sorts, path and directness metrics for tree tests, click maps for first-click studies, and video with timestamps and notes for usability tests.
- 4
Separately, the session recording and heatmap module can run continuously on a live site as a lightweight behavior analytics layer, giving the same account both moderated research and passive observation without another vendor.
Feature breakdown
20 features in 4 modulesInformation architecture research
The methods most small teams skip because the tools are sold separately.- Card sorting
- Open, closed, and hybrid sorts with dendrograms, similarity matrices, and agreement scores to show how users actually group your content.
- Tree testing
- Findability testing against a stripped navigation structure, reporting success rate, directness, and the paths where people go wrong.
- First-click testing
- Measures where users click first on a screen for a given task, the single strongest predictor of task success in navigation research.
- Preference testing
- Head-to-head design comparisons with reasoning captured, useful for settling internal disagreements with evidence.
- Five-second testing
- Brief exposure tests measuring what people remember and understand from a page at first glance.
Usability testing
Watching real people attempt real tasks, moderated or not.- Website usability testing
- Task-based studies on your live site with screen recording, without installing anything on the site itself.
- Prototype testing
- Studies against Figma and other prototypes so problems are found before engineering time is spent.
- Moderated sessions
- Live sessions with scheduling, observation, and recording for the cases where follow-up questions matter.
- Task metrics and video analysis
- Success rates, time on task, and annotated video with timestamps, so findings can be shared as clips rather than summaries.
- Mobile and responsive testing
- Studies run on mobile browsers with the same capture, covering the surface where most usability problems now occur.
Recruitment and panel
The part that usually determines whether a study happens at all.- Built-in participant panel
- Recruit by demographics, location, and professional attributes without arranging a separate panel contract.
- On-site recruiter widget
- Intercept your own real visitors and invite them into a study, which produces more representative participants than a professional panel.
- Own-audience distribution
- Share links for studies distributed by email, community, or customer list, at no participant cost.
- Screener questions
- Qualify participants before they consume study slots, protecting the budget from unqualified responses.
- Incentive handling
- Panel incentives managed within the platform rather than administered manually by the researcher.
Behavior analytics and platform
Passive observation and the operational surface.- Session recording
- Continuous recording of live site sessions with filtering, as a lightweight alternative to a separate replay subscription.
- Heatmaps
- Click, movement, and scroll maps generated from live traffic alongside the research studies.
- Onsite surveys
- Targeted questions delivered to real visitors, connecting attitudinal data to observed behavior.
- Team collaboration
- Shared studies, comments, and exportable reports for handing findings to stakeholders.
- Free plan with real studies
- A permanent free tier that allows small studies across methods rather than only a demo, which is how many teams first run a card sort.
Use cases
4 documentedDesigner restructuring a site's navigation
The team has three proposed menu structures and no evidence beyond internal opinion about which is clearer.
A tree test across all three with a few hundred participants reports success and directness rates per structure, and the argument is settled with numbers rather than seniority.
Startup validating a prototype before build
A new onboarding flow exists in Figma, and building it wrong would cost weeks of engineering time.
Unmoderated prototype tests with panel participants surface two blocking misunderstandings, which are fixed in the design file before any code is written.
Ecommerce team fixing category labels
Search usage is unusually high, suggesting people cannot find products through the menu.
An open card sort shows customers group products by occasion rather than by product type, and the relabeled categories reduce reliance on search.
Small research team without a panel contract
Needs eight qualified participants for a usability study by the end of the week, with no recruiting budget approved.
The on-site recruiter intercepts real visitors matching a screener, and the study runs with representative users at no panel cost.
Pricing
from Free for small studies; paid plans from roughly $80 per monthSubscription by plan tier, with allowances defined by studies, responses, and session recording volume. Participant recruitment from the built-in panel is charged separately per participant. A permanent free plan supports small studies.
| Plan | Price | Includes |
|---|---|---|
| Free | $0 per month |
|
| Plus and Business | From about $80 per month |
|
| Enterprise | Quoted annual |
|
Billing notes
- Panel participants are billed per person on top of the subscription, so a study's true cost is the plan fee plus recruitment.
- Recruiting from your own audience or via the on-site widget avoids panel charges entirely, which is the main lever on cost.
- Plan allowances are expressed in responses rather than seats, so a large team running few studies pays less than a small team running many.
- Annual billing is discounted as published August 2026.
- The free plan is capable enough to run a genuine first card sort, which is unusual in a category where free tiers are demos.
Value assessment: Buying card sorting, tree testing, usability testing, and session recording separately generally costs several times more than one UXtweak subscription, and the included panel removes the second contract most teams need. Against a dedicated moderated research platform it is less refined, and against a pure heatmap tool it is more expensive than necessary. The sweet spot is a small product team that wants to run several kinds of study per quarter without procurement for each one.
Strengths & limitations
Strengths
- Genuinely broad method coverage, including information architecture research that is usually sold separately.
- Built-in participant panel plus an on-site recruiter, so studies are not blocked on finding people.
- Free plan that permits real studies rather than a demo.
- Website testing works against a live site without installing code, lowering the barrier to a first study.
- Method-appropriate analysis outputs, including dendrograms and directness metrics rather than raw data dumps.
- European vendor with straightforward data protection posture for EU-based teams.
Limitations
- Each method is slightly less refined than the specialist tool devoted to it.
- No A/B testing or conversion experimentation.
- Panel participant costs are additional and can dominate the total cost of a study.
- Native mobile app testing is limited compared with web and prototype coverage.
- Smaller brand recognition than the best-known research platforms, which occasionally matters internally.
- Session recording and heatmaps, while included, are less deep than dedicated behavior analytics products.
Head-to-head comparisons
3 alternativesUXtweak vs Hotjar
from Free (35 daily sessions on Observe Basic); paid Observe plans from roughly $32 per month billed annuallyDifferent halves of the research problem. Hotjar observes existing traffic and asks it questions; UXtweak runs structured studies with recruited participants and tests structures that do not exist yet, such as a proposed navigation. Teams with a live site and no research practice usually start with Hotjar; teams designing something new need UXtweak's methods, which Hotjar cannot perform at all.
Full UXtweak vs Hotjar comparisonUXtweak vs Typeform
from $0 (free, 10 responses a month), then $29 per month billed annually for BasicOverlap only at the survey layer. Typeform is far better at conversational form design, branding, and distribution as a marketing asset. UXtweak's surveys exist to support research studies and sit alongside card sorts, tree tests, and usability sessions. Use Typeform for anything customer-facing and polished; use UXtweak when the survey is one instrument in a study.
Full UXtweak vs Typeform comparisonUXtweak vs Maze
from Free tier for limited studies; paid plans commonly from around $99 per monthThe closest direct competitor, both offering unmoderated testing with panels for product teams. Maze is stronger on polish, prototype integration workflows, and reporting aesthetics aimed at sharing with stakeholders. UXtweak is broader on classical information architecture methods and typically cheaper for the same volume, making it the better fit for teams that value method coverage over presentation.
Full UXtweak vs Maze comparisonImplementation & onboarding
- Setup time
- A first unmoderated study can be built and launched in an afternoon. Session recording requires a script install, which takes under an hour.
- Learning curve
- Moderate, and mostly methodological rather than technical: knowing when a tree test answers your question better than a usability session is the real skill. The platform provides templates and guidance for each method.
- Onboarding
- Self-serve with method-specific documentation, templates, and a substantial library of UX research education. Enterprise plans include structured onboarding.
- Migration notes
- Study data exports to standard formats, and past research from other tools is generally kept as documents rather than migrated. If moving session recording, expect no history transfer, and re-create the recruiter widget configuration rather than porting it.
Platform, API & security
- Platforms
- Web applicationWebsite session recording scriptFigma and prototype integrationsMobile web
- API
- Study data export and API access on higher tiers, plus integrations with prototyping and workflow tools.
- Compliance
- GDPRCCPASOC 2
- Data residency
- EU-based processing as a European vendor.
- SSO
- Available on enterprise plans.
- Security notes
- Participant consent is collected within studies, recordings can be masked, and the platform's European base simplifies data protection arrangements for EU teams.
Support & resources
- Channels
- Email supportIn-app chatDocumentation and research guides
- Documentation
- Method-oriented documentation that doubles as education on when to use each research technique, plus templates for common study designs.
- Community
- Active presence in the UX research community with published guides, webinars, and a substantial free knowledge base.
Company
- Founded
- 2017
- Headquarters
- Bratislava, Slovakia
- Ownership
- Private, independent
- Employees
- ~50 (est. 2026)
- Funding
- Privately funded with limited disclosed outside investment.
Timeline
- 2017Founded in Bratislava as a UX research tool suite for product teams.
- 2020Adds card sorting and tree testing, targeting information architecture research underserved at small-team prices.
- 2022Launches its own participant panel and on-site recruiter, removing the recruitment bottleneck.
- 2024Expands moderated testing and prototype study support alongside the unmoderated suite.
- 2026Established as the broad-method, low-cost alternative to specialist research platforms.
Integrations
- Figma
- Google Analytics
- Slack
- Zapier
- Google Tag Manager
- Miro
- Adobe XD
Frequently asked questions
10 questionsWhat is UXtweak?
UXtweak is a UX research platform bundling card sorting, tree testing, first-click and preference testing, five-second tests, moderated and unmoderated usability studies, surveys, session recording, and heatmaps into one subscription, with a built-in participant panel for recruiting.
How much does UXtweak cost?
There is a permanent free plan allowing small studies across most methods. Paid plans start around $80 per month and scale with responses and study volume, with enterprise agreements quoted. Panel participants are charged separately per person, so budget the plan fee and the recruitment cost independently.
What is tree testing and why does it matter?
Tree testing measures whether people can find things in your navigation structure, presented as a text-only hierarchy with no visual design to help them. It isolates information architecture from aesthetics, and it is the cheapest way to discover that a menu label everyone internally understands means nothing to customers.
Does UXtweak provide research participants?
Yes, through its own panel with demographic and professional targeting, charged per participant. It also offers an on-site recruiter widget that invites your real website visitors into studies, which produces more representative participants and costs nothing extra beyond the subscription.
UXtweak vs Maze: which should I pick?
Maze is more polished, with stronger prototype workflows and reporting designed for sharing with stakeholders. UXtweak covers more classical research methods, particularly card sorting and tree testing, and is generally cheaper for equivalent volume. Choose Maze for presentation and prototype-centric work, UXtweak for method breadth on a smaller budget.
Can I test a Figma prototype with UXtweak?
Yes. Prototype studies run against Figma and similar tools, letting you measure task success and watch where users hesitate before any engineering work begins, which is the point in a project where changes are cheapest.
Does UXtweak include heatmaps and session recording?
Yes, as a module alongside the research suite. It is lighter than a dedicated behavior analytics product, but it means a team running research studies does not necessarily need a separate replay subscription for basic observation.
Do I need to install code on my site to run a usability test?
No for website usability studies, which run through a proxy layer against your live site. Yes for continuous session recording, heatmaps, and the on-site recruiter widget, which require the tracking script.
How many participants does a card sort need?
Roughly 15 to 30 participants stabilizes the grouping patterns in most open card sorts, and 30 or more gives comfortable confidence for closed sorts. Tree tests generally want more, around 50 per structure, because success rates are proportions and need volume to distinguish.
Is UXtweak GDPR compliant?
It is a European company processing data under EU law, with consent collection built into studies, masking options on recordings, and standard data-processing terms. Participants explicitly consent to recording as part of study enrollment, which simplifies the position compared with passive site recording.
Editorial verdict
UXtweak solves a specific and common problem: small teams know they should run card sorts and tree tests, and they do not, because those methods are sold by specialist vendors at prices no one will approve for occasional use. Putting the whole method suite plus recruitment behind one affordable subscription with a usable free tier changes that calculation, and the on-site recruiter is the best answer to the participant problem that most teams have available. It is not the most polished research platform, its behavior analytics are secondary, and panel costs need budgeting separately. But for a product team that wants to test structure and comprehension rather than just watch traffic, it covers more of the discipline per dollar than anything else in this directory.
Written by the SaaSTracker editorial team. Awards, when shown, are judged against the published criteria in our methodology.