Intercom Surveys VS Maze

Maze is a robust user testing platform that aims to revolutionize the way businesses gather and leverage user insights. Known for its user-friendly interface and dynamic testing methods, Maze equips product teams with the necessary tools to analyze user behavior and make data-driven decisions.

‍

A key component of Maze's offering is its interactive prototyping tests. These allow businesses to validate ideas and designs by testing prototypes of their product on actual users. Users can interact with the prototype as they would with the finished product, providing product teams with accurate, real-world feedback.

‍

Beyond interactive testing, Maze also shines in its ability to analyze user paths. This feature helps businesses understand how users navigate through their product, highlighting potential areas of friction or confusion. By identifying these issues early in the development process, businesses can make necessary changes before launching their product, saving time and resources.

While Intercom's survey tools are generally commended for their effectiveness, there are users who have voiced concerns about their lack of customization and user-friendliness. A G2 user mentioned that the survey tools were not as adaptable to their needs as they would have liked. They found the user interface less intuitive, making the process of creating and disseminating surveys more complex than necessary.

Similarly, a user on TrustRadius had praises for the overall Intercom platform but found the survey tools lacking. They felt the tools were rigid and did not provide the detailed feedback they desired.

Maze, a platform for user testing, is lauded for its smooth integration with Figma, which facilitates swift prototyping and user testing. Users also appreciate the platform's intuitive interface for creating tests.

However, Maze does face some challenges. Some users have reported slower load times when dealing with complex tests, which could potentially affect the user testing experience. This issue is highlighted in a review where a user discusses their struggle with Maze when dealing with large, detailed prototypes.

Furthermore, Maze's strategy of upselling features, such as the customization of the welcome screen, has been met with some criticism. While the platform's reporting capabilities have seen significant improvements, there are users who find themselves having to create their own reports for stakeholder presentations. This suggests that there may be room for Maze to enhance the presentation of its reporting data, as pointed out in this review.

In conclusion, while Maze offers robust features and seamless integration with design tools, there are areas, such as load times and reporting presentation, where improvements could be made. These insights should be taken into account when considering Maze for user testing and prototyping needs.

‍