Lyssna Pricing Overview

So darn intuitive to use. I've hardly had to refer to documentation to figure out how to get started. Lots of templates to use as a starting point. And I've attended several webinars hosted by the support team. Always have ready-to-implement insights and nice to be able to chat with other designers in the chat room. Easy to read and share the testing results. I've even added collaborators to the projects to encourage other marketing folks to leverage the tool. They also found it very easing to use. We can upgrade / downgrade as our needs dictate and the cost per cost is fair. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I need help writing good instructions to be able to get quality responses from the participants. Sometimes I feel like the responses don't give me enough insights to inform the next iteration of the design. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Lyssna's mix-and-match study builder is its main asset. You can easily combine different methods, task types, etc. in a fairly flexible way. The builder UI is intuitive (easy to navigate with keyboard, supports bulk pasting to build response trees, functional Figma integration), and data export is rich (although occasionally plagued with special character issues). It is very good for quick, single-purpose studies with rapid recruitment and flexible screening tools. I often don't need to write custom screeners because they collect a lot of demographic data you can use when building your sample - for example, if I want to survey homeowners, I can select that attribute rather than writing a screener question (for which they charge extra...). Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Lyssna's pricing is wildly unpredictable. Where other platforms charge a consistent rate for a specific type of research (e.g. $5/head for surveys, or $60 for unmoderated usability testing), Lyssna prices based on predicted length of study, and those predictions seem to have little relationship to reality. Sometimes this is useful - I find Lyssna's rates are often below competitors for shorter studies or single tasks - but sometimes it's prohibitive, as estimates snowball for longer studies and rapidly become unreasonable. I wouldn't recommend them for larger usability studies with many tasks, or for benchmarking studies where you want users to perform multiple tasks with each of several competitors, both because the randomization feature can't handle this, and because you'll have no idea of your cost until you've built the whole study out.

I also consistently experience crippling performance issues with their study builder, which is laggy under the best of circumstances and unusable under the worst. (Notably, PlaybookUX has the same problem here. I wouldn't recommend them either.)

Lyssna has zero qualitative analysis functionality for interviews - not even the ability to export video clips, let alone tag things. I would absolutely not recommend them for synchronous studies right now.

Finally, Lyssna's study builder does not autosave, and won't save your study with errors or incomplete fields. This makes it risky to work with - you can't build out a click test protocol preemptively without uploading your images, for example, because it won't save - and I've lost large amounts of work many times. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.