Maze vs Lyssna 2026: design research head-to-head

Maze and Lyssna are both strong options for unmoderated design research, but they prioritise different things. Maze goes deep on prototype testing and task analytics; Lyssna trades some of that depth for a broader method range and a larger built-in consumer panel. Picking the wrong one means either missing key metrics or recruiting the wrong audience.

This comparison covers eight decision factors so you can make a fast, confident choice.

What each tool is built to do

Maze launched in 2018 as a Figma-native prototype testing platform. Its core strength is quantitative task analysis: time on task, misclick rate, heatmaps, path analysis, and completion rates, all surfaced at the screen level. Over time it has added surveys, card sorting, tree testing, and a basic panel.

Lyssna (formerly UsabilityHub) rebranded in 2023 and has grown into a multi-method platform. It handles preference tests, concept tests, surveys, five-second tests, card sorting, tree testing, prototype testing, and live interviews. Its built-in panel of roughly 690,000 participants is a genuine differentiator for teams that do not want to manage external recruitment.

Side-by-side comparison

Factor	Maze	Lyssna
Prototype testing depth	Excellent (Figma, InVision, Marvel, Marvelapp, URL)	Good (Figma, URL)
Task analytics	Heatmaps, misclick, path, screen-by-screen	Heatmaps, basic click data
Surveys	Yes (logic branching)	Yes (logic branching)
Card sorting	Yes	Yes
Tree testing	Yes	Yes
Five-second tests	Yes	Yes
Live interviews	No	Yes (scheduler + notetaking)
Built-in panel size	Smaller, niche-limited	~690,000 consumers
Figma integration	Native, bi-directional	Native
AI features	AI insights, auto-tagging	AI insights, sentiment
Free tier	Yes (limited responses)	Yes (limited responses)
Entry paid price	~$99/month (annual)	~$75/month (annual)

Prototype testing: where Maze pulls ahead

Prototype testing is where Maze earns its reputation. When you import a Figma file, Maze maps every frame and records every click. You get:

Misclick rate per screen, showing exactly where participants deviate from the happy path
Heat maps overlaid on individual frames
Path analysis that visualises all the routes participants took
Direct path vs indirect path breakdowns by task

Lyssna’s prototype testing is solid for concept validation. You can set tasks, collect click data, and compare variants. But the frame-level analytics are shallower. If your goal is to optimise a complex, multi-screen flow before engineering picks it up, Maze gives you meaningfully more signal.

Panel and recruitment: where Lyssna has the edge

Lyssna’s 690,000-participant panel covers a wide range of consumer demographics. You can filter by age, gender, country, and a handful of employment criteria, then launch a study and receive responses within hours. This is a genuine time saver for B2C product teams validating consumer-facing designs.

Maze has its own panel but it is smaller and more limited in targeting depth. Many Maze teams rely on their own customer lists or external recruitment tools to fill studies.

Both panels fall short for B2B research. If you need participants who are, say, procurement managers at mid-market SaaS companies, neither tool’s native panel will consistently hit that profile. That is a common reason teams use a platform like CleverX alongside their testing tool. CleverX runs a verified B2B and B2C panel of 8M+ participants across 150+ countries and can fill niche B2B studies in days rather than weeks.

Method breadth: the case for Lyssna

Lyssna supports live moderated interviews through a built-in scheduler and note-taking layer. You can move from an unmoderated prototype test to a moderated debrief without leaving the platform. The integrated approach reduces context switching and keeps all artefacts in one place.

Maze does not offer live interviews. Teams that run mixed-method studies (unmoderated test first, follow-up interviews second) have to pull in a separate tool, which adds friction to the workflow and can complicate data consolidation.

For broad qualitative-plus-quantitative programmes, Lyssna’s method range is more practical.

AI features

Both platforms added AI summarisation in 2023 and 2024.

Maze AI highlights emerging patterns in open-text responses and surfaces tasks with high struggle scores automatically. It can generate an executive summary from a study with one click.

Lyssna’s AI layer covers sentiment tagging on written responses and generates a topline results summary. It is less mature on the task-analytics side but covers the basics for survey and interview data.

Neither tool matches the depth of a dedicated qualitative analysis platform like Dovetail or Atlas.ti, but both reduce the time it takes to get from raw responses to a shareable report.

Integrations

Maze integrates with Figma (bi-directional), InVision, Marvel, Slack, Jira, and Confluence. The Jira and Confluence integrations let you attach study results directly to tickets and pages, which is valuable in product-led organisations.

Lyssna integrates with Figma, Slack, and Zapier. The Zapier connection opens up broader automation options but requires more setup than Maze’s native integrations.

Maze generates a shareable results link and a downloadable PDF report per study. The study dashboard shows response rates, completion rates, and task metrics in a clean layout that non-researchers can read.

Lyssna’s results pages are similarly polished and support clip sharing: you can highlight a specific response and generate a URL that goes directly to that moment, useful for async stakeholder reviews.

Neither tool has a deeply customisable reporting layer. If you need branded, fully formatted research deliverables, you will still export to a slide deck.

When to choose Maze

Choose Maze when:

Your core use case is Figma prototype testing with deep task analytics
You need path analysis and screen-level heatmaps to optimise complex flows
Your team is embedded in a Jira and Confluence-heavy product organisation
You primarily recruit participants externally or through your own customer base

When to choose Lyssna

Choose Lyssna when:

You run a range of methods beyond prototype testing (concept tests, surveys, interviews)
You need a large consumer panel with fast turnaround and no separate recruitment contract
Your team wants live interview capability in the same platform
Budget efficiency is a priority and the lower entry price matters

When to use neither as a standalone

Both tools rely on convenience samples for their built-in panels. If your research questions require verified professional credentials, specific industries, or roles that a consumer panel cannot reliably deliver, supplement your testing tool with a dedicated recruitment source.

Research on enterprise software, regulated industries, or technical buyer personas tends to need that extra layer. You can read more about how to approach this in our guide to best remote usability platforms with built-in recruitment.

Frequently asked questions

What is the main difference between Maze and Lyssna? Maze is built primarily around Figma/prototype testing with a full suite of quantitative UX tasks. Lyssna started as a lightweight concept and preference testing tool and has since expanded to include surveys, interviews, and recruitment. If your workflow centres on prototype validation, Maze fits better. If you run mixed-method studies and want fast access to a consumer panel, Lyssna is the stronger pick.

Which tool has a larger built-in participant panel? Lyssna maintains a built-in audience of roughly 690,000 vetted participants. Maze has its own panel but it is smaller, and many teams supplement it with external recruitment. For niche B2B audiences, neither panel is sufficient on its own, so a dedicated recruitment platform is often needed alongside either tool.

Does Maze support live moderated interviews? Not natively. Maze focuses on self-guided, unmoderated tasks and does not include a built-in video interview module. Lyssna added a live interview scheduler in 2024. For moderated research at scale you will need a separate solution.

Can Lyssna test Figma prototypes? Yes. Lyssna added Figma prototype testing in 2022 and has continued to expand it. However, the feature set is narrower than Maze: Maze offers path analysis, heatmaps, misclick tracking, and screen-by-screen metrics that Lyssna does not match in depth.

How do Maze and Lyssna compare on pricing? Both tools offer free tiers with significant restrictions. Maze paid plans start around $99 per month (billed annually) and Lyssna paid plans start around $75 per month. Costs escalate quickly once you add panel credits or unlock advanced reporting. Always request a quote that includes recruitment costs for an apples-to-apples comparison.

When should I use neither Maze nor Lyssna? If you need verified B2B participants with specific job titles, seniority levels, or company sizes, neither tool’s built-in panel will cover the audience reliably. In those cases, pairing your preferred testing tool with a dedicated B2B recruitment platform gives you methodology depth plus audience precision.