Maze vs CleverX: which research platform should you use?

Maze and CleverX are both user research platforms, but they were built for different primary jobs. Maze was designed for product and design teams who want to run unmoderated prototype tests directly from Figma without needing a dedicated researcher to manage the process. CleverX was designed for research programs that need professional participant access, moderated sessions, and the ability to run qualitative research at scale alongside structured testing.

The comparison between them is not really about which is better in a general sense. It is about which fits the kind of research your team actually runs. For some teams the answer is clear. For many teams, both platforms serve different parts of the research workflow and are worth understanding on their own terms before deciding how to combine or choose between them.

What each platform is

Maze is an unmoderated usability testing platform built around the design team workflow. Its core capability is native Figma integration: a designer can import a prototype directly from Figma and launch an unmoderated usability study with minimal setup, without needing to share links, configure external tools, or involve a research specialist. Maze measures task success, captures click paths, generates heatmaps, and collects responses to follow-up questions, all from participants who move through the test independently at their own pace. A consumer participant panel is included for teams that need immediate participant access.

CleverX is a participant recruitment and research platform. Its professional participant pool of 8 million verified participants across 150+ countries covers both B2B professional profiles and B2C consumer profiles, with attribute-level filtering for job function, seniority, company size, industry vertical, technology usage, and purchasing authority. Alongside recruitment, CleverX includes integrated video session infrastructure for moderated research, AI Interview Agents for AI-moderated sessions at scale, unmoderated testing tools for prototype testing and information architecture studies, real-time transcription, hidden observer rooms, and AI-assisted synthesis. It is a broader research platform rather than a design-workflow-specific tool.

Prototype testing: where Maze has a genuine edge

Maze’s Figma integration is its most significant competitive advantage and the reason design teams choose it over more general-purpose platforms. When a Figma prototype is imported into Maze, the test setup is fast, the task paths are linked directly to specific frames, and automatic task success detection measures whether participants reached the target screen without requiring the researcher to manually review every session. Click heatmaps aggregate interaction patterns across all participants and surface usability issues visually without requiring analysis expertise.

For design teams running frequent, iterative prototype tests on consumer-facing products, this workflow is genuinely more efficient than any alternative. The Figma-to-test path in Maze is shorter and requires less research expertise to operate than setting up equivalent studies in platforms that were not designed around the Figma workflow. If the primary research activity is rapid unmoderated prototype testing with consumer audiences and speed of setup is the dominant factor, Maze is the stronger choice for that specific use case.

CleverX supports prototype testing through moderated sessions where the researcher shares a prototype link and guides the participant through tasks. This approach is better suited to prototypes that benefit from moderator probing, follow-up questions, and real-time observation of reasoning rather than pure click measurement. For unmoderated prototype testing that needs professional B2B participants rather than consumer audiences, CleverX draws from its professional participant pool while Maze’s panel skews consumer. The trade-off is that CleverX’s unmoderated prototype testing does not have the same native Figma import workflow that Maze provides.

Participant recruitment: where CleverX has a decisive edge

Maze’s participant panel is consumer-focused. It covers broad demographic criteria for general consumer audiences and works well for product teams testing consumer-facing features with everyday users. Professional B2B filtering exists but is not the panel’s primary strength. Studies requiring specific professional criteria such as IT decision-makers, finance professionals, DevOps engineers, or enterprise software buyers in specific industries and company sizes will find Maze’s qualified participant pool thin relative to what those profiles require.

CleverX’s 8 million verified professionals across 150+ countries covers the full range of B2B research profiles with the attribute-level specificity that professional research requires. The same platform also covers B2C consumer profiles, which means research programs running a mix of consumer and professional research do not need separate platforms for each audience type.

For research programs where participant access is the harder problem, specifically B2B professional research, international studies, or research requiring niche industry expertise, CleverX has a decisive practical advantage over Maze. The consumer prototype testing use case is the area where Maze’s panel coverage is genuinely sufficient. Everything beyond that requires either supplementing Maze with a separate recruitment platform or moving to CleverX entirely.

Moderated research: only CleverX covers it

Maze is an unmoderated testing platform. It does not support live moderated sessions where a researcher is present and can ask follow-up questions in real time. Every study on Maze runs with participants completing tasks independently without researcher involvement during the session.

CleverX covers both moderated and unmoderated research from the same platform. For moderated sessions, integrated video infrastructure with Krisp AI noise cancellation, real-time transcription, and hidden observer rooms handles the session execution alongside the participant recruitment. For research at higher volumes than human moderation allows, AI Interview Agents conduct dynamic sessions that ask follow-up questions based on participant responses, providing qualitative depth at scale that neither human moderation nor standard unmoderated testing can deliver simultaneously.

For research teams whose work includes user interviews, moderated usability sessions, concept testing with discussion, or any method that requires a researcher to be present and responsive during the session, Maze is simply not the right tool. CleverX covers that entire side of the research method spectrum. See unmoderated vs moderated usability testing for a framework on when each method fits the research question.

Method coverage beyond prototype testing

Maze’s method coverage is centered on prototype and design testing. Prototype testing, click heatmaps, five-second tests, and basic surveys cover the core design research workflow. Tree testing and card sorting are not supported, which means information architecture research requires a separate platform.

CleverX covers prototype testing, first-click testing, tree testing, card sorting, moderated sessions, AI-moderated sessions, and surveys from the same account. For research teams that run a variety of methods and want to minimize platform count, CleverX covers more of the research method spectrum from a single platform than Maze does.

Pricing

Maze operates on a subscription model. Its Starter plan runs approximately $99 per month, with Team and Organization plans at $249 per month and above. Annual billing reduces these rates. The free tier provides limited study blocks per month, which works for occasional lightweight testing. For design teams running frequent studies, the monthly subscription cost is predictable and straightforward.

CleverX uses a credit-based model at $1 per credit with no annual contract. Credits cover participant recruitment, session execution, and access to all testing and moderated research tools. A five-participant unmoderated study with consumer participants runs approximately $150 to $300. A five-participant B2B moderated study with specific professional criteria runs $500 to $1,500 depending on the role and seniority. For teams running primarily consumer prototype testing at high frequency, Maze’s subscription pricing may be more cost-efficient than per-study credit consumption. For teams running mixed methods or B2B research, CleverX’s credit model scales better with the actual cost structure of that research.

See Maze alternatives for other unmoderated testing platforms if Maze’s method coverage or pricing does not fit your program.

When Maze is the better choice

Maze is the right platform for design teams whose primary research activity is rapid unmoderated prototype testing with consumer audiences in a Figma-native workflow. If the majority of research involves testing Figma prototypes with consumer participants, needing results quickly, and keeping setup complexity minimal, Maze was built for exactly that workflow. The Figma integration reduces friction for designers running their own research without a dedicated researcher. The subscription pricing is predictable. The consumer panel provides immediate access for most common testing criteria.

When CleverX is the better choice

CleverX is the right platform for research programs that need professional B2B participant access, moderated research alongside unmoderated testing, international studies, or qualitative research at scale through AI Interview Agents. For research teams rather than design teams, where the research method mix extends beyond consumer prototype testing, CleverX covers significantly more of the work from a single platform. For any organization where B2B professional research represents a meaningful share of the portfolio, Maze’s consumer panel is a structural limitation that CleverX resolves.

Using both platforms together

Many research teams use Maze for design-workflow-specific prototype testing and CleverX for everything else: B2B recruitment, moderated sessions, international studies, and AI-moderated research at scale. The two platforms serve genuinely different parts of the research workflow in most programs and do not duplicate each other significantly. A design team running weekly Figma prototype tests on Maze can work alongside a research team running quarterly strategic B2B interview programs on CleverX without the tools conflicting.

See usability testing platform comparison for how Maze and CleverX compare alongside other platforms in the full usability testing landscape, or explore best B2B research tools if B2B participant access is your primary concern.

Frequently asked questions

Does Maze support B2B research?

Maze supports B2B research through its participant panel, but professional profile filtering is limited compared to dedicated B2B platforms. Studies requiring specific professional criteria such as job function, company size, industry, or seniority will find CleverX’s 8 million professionally verified participant pool significantly more capable of filling qualified sessions for niche B2B profiles. For B2B research beyond common professional roles, Maze’s panel is not the right primary source. See how to recruit B2B research participants for a detailed B2B recruitment approach.

Is Maze or CleverX better for small design teams?

For small design teams whose primary activity is testing Figma prototypes with consumer audiences, Maze’s focused design-workflow integration and subscription pricing are a strong fit. The platform requires minimal research expertise to operate and produces usable prototype feedback quickly. For small research teams conducting a broader mix of research methods across consumer and professional audiences, CleverX’s method breadth and credit-based pricing that scales with actual usage are more practical than Maze’s subscription model. The right answer depends on whether the team’s primary identity is a design team testing prototypes or a research team running varied studies.

Can CleverX replace Maze entirely?

For most research programs, CleverX can replace Maze. It covers prototype testing, unmoderated studies, and information architecture testing alongside moderated sessions and B2B recruitment from the same platform. The specific use case where Maze is hard to replace is rapid Figma-native prototype testing for consumer audiences where the design-to-test workflow speed is the dominant factor. For design teams where setting up a test in two clicks from Figma is the core value, Maze’s native integration is difficult to replicate with the same efficiency. For research teams where participant access and method breadth matter more than Figma workflow speed, CleverX is the complete replacement.

Does CleverX have Figma integration?

CleverX supports Figma prototype testing through moderated and unmoderated sessions where the researcher shares a Figma prototype link with participants. It does not have Maze’s direct Figma import workflow that automatically links test tasks to specific frames and detects task success by screen destination. For studies where the researcher is present to guide the session, CleverX’s moderated Figma testing produces richer qualitative data than Maze’s unmoderated approach. For fully automated unmoderated Figma prototype testing, Maze’s native integration is currently more streamlined.