UX Tools in Comparison

UX design has long been a data-supported, iterative process - and modern UX tools are key tools for making this process efficient, user-centered and comprehensible. Whether initial ideas need to be tested, users observed or design decisions validated: There are specialized tools for each of these steps.

But which tool is suitable for which use case? And how do tools such as Maze, Lookback or UsabilityHub differ in terms of their methodological depth? The following overview shows central UX tools in practical use - with strengths, weaknesses and typical application scenarios.

Maze: Quantitative Testing with Prototypes

Maze is a remote tool that is particularly suitable for fast, unmoderated tests at prototype level. UX teams can directly import Figma, Adobe XD or Sketch prototypes, define tasks and measure user behavior.

Practical example: A design team wants to know whether users can intuitively find the new filter function in the prototype. They set a task in Maze (“Filter by price < €50”) and measure the success rate and click paths.

Benefits: ✔️ Scalable and fast ✔️ Automatic heat maps and conversion analyses ✔️ Integration into common design platforms

Borders:

• Rather superficial: no queries, no contextual knowledge
• Results must be interpreted, not just consumed

Lookback: Observing and Understanding in Real Time

Lookback is particularly suitable for moderated tests and qualitative interviews, where UX teams want to understand more deeply why users act the way they do.

Practical example: During a remote usability test for a new appointment booking, the moderator sees via live stream how a user hesitates for a long time. When asked, the user explains: “I’m not sure whether I’m booking with the click or only on the next page.”

Benefits: ✔️ Direct communication and inquiries possible ✔️ Video analysis with timecode comments ✔️ Several stakeholders can watch passively

Borders:

• Higher planning costs
• Technically more demanding (especially with less tech-savvy participants)

UsabilityHub: Visual Feedback at Lightning Speed

UsabilityHub offers simple, visually oriented test formats such as 5-Second-Tests, Preference-Tests or Click-Tests. The tool is ideal for evaluating initial design alternatives.

Practical example: Two variants of a home screen are available to choose from. Within a few hours, 50 anonymous test subjects provide feedback on which variant they find more intuitive - with a brief explanation.

Benefits: ✔️ Quick & easy ✔️ Ideal for forming hypotheses in the design process ✔️ Own or external test persons possible

Borders:

• No complete context of use
• Rather selective perception than behavior

Optimal Workshop: Understanding Structure Instead of Just Designing it

When it comes to Information Architecture - how content is structured, categorized or found - Optimal Workshop is the tool of choice. Intuitive structures can be developed and validated with Card Sorting and Tree Testing.

Practical example: A museum is redesigning its online catalog. With the help of card sorting, they test how users would group exhibits - “art by era”, “by material” or “by theme”.

Benefits: ✔️ Specialized methods for complex content ✔️ Visual evaluations (e.g. cluster diagrams) ✔️ Well suited for intranets, large websites, information portals

Borders:

• No UI feedback - only structural view
• Interpretation requires an understanding of context

Hotjar & Microsoft Clarity: Making Real Usage Visible

These tools record real sessions and generate ** heatmaps, scroll tracking and session replays**. They provide visual indications of how users actually move through a product - without actively asking them.

Practical example: On a landing page, UX teams see that only 20% of visitors reach the lower call-to-action - even though it is central to the funnel. Result: The button is placed further up, the scroll depth increases by 35%.

Benefits: ✔️ Realistic, as collected on live pages ✔️ Quickly identify initial hypotheses ✔️ Can be used free of charge (Clarity)

Borders:

• No root cause analysis without supplementary methods
• Observe data protection and consent

Conclusion: Which Tool for Which Purpose?

There is no “best UX tool” - there are only suitable tools for certain questions. The decisive factor is what is to be investigated:

Hint: A good tool stack combines quantitative metrics with qualitative insights. In this way, the number of clicks and comments form a holistic picture.

Final Thought

UX tools are not methods - they are methodical tools. If you select them in a targeted manner, combine them wisely and use them thoughtfully, you can not only validate design decisions, but also improve the user experience in a well-founded and effective way.

Last modified: 17 June 2025