Optimal Reviews & Product Details

Overall, I am very satisfied with Optimal Workshop. It offers a comprehensive suite of tools, and the variety of tests available fully meets my research needs. Setting up tests is straightforward, and the in-app analysis tools are excellent. I can launch a test quickly without much effort. My users appreciate the self-paced, unmoderated tests, finding them easy to complete, and we typically see a strong response rate when we distribute them. What I find most helpful is how quickly I can set up tests, how simple it is for participants to take them independently, and how easily I can collaborate with coworkers on test projects. One of the main advantages of using Optimal Workshop is that its suite of tools covers most of my project requirements. Additionally, I continue to discover new features, such as Segments and the ability to share results via a link, which add even more value to the platform. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Optimal Workshop does not integrate with my email, so I have to leave the app to handle communication through my email provider. It would be much more convenient if I could send mass emails with test links to participants directly from the Optimal interface. Over the past year, there have been some UI changes that I was not pleased with, and I wish I had been informed about them ahead of time. As far as I can tell, the task follow-up questions are only accessible in the download section via the spreadsheet, which is not ideal. I was also disappointed with the quality of the participant pool; most responses were just one-line answers that were not useful. I am frustrated by the new pricing structure which has limitations on the number of tests, since I often create tests to run with a few users and then discard them, but I cannot make adjustments after receiving feedback. The tool may become unaffordable for smaller teams. There are also some smaller interface issues, such as wanting to see the number of users who completed a test in the main dashboard view, rather than only for live tests. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I really enjoy using the survey and card sorting tools. They’re straightforward to set up, and the recent UI improvements have made the researcher’s experience much smoother and more intuitive. Prototype testing is also very user-friendly when it comes to setup (though I haven’t launched a study yet). Overall, each release feels like the platform is getting better at supporting setup and execution, which makes running studies much more efficient. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

The biggest drawback is the data output and analytics. While the platform captures the basics, it doesn’t allow me to perform certain cross-analyses or track user flows within questionnaires. For example, in card sorting, it only records the final placements, not how participants interacted with the cards or how long they took to make decisions. As a result, I often need to export the raw data and run additional analysis myself, which adds extra steps that could be avoided if these insights were built in. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I like the low barrier to entry and minimal learning curve with Optimal. The added visualizations for the IA studies are really helpful for sharing the findings with clients and team members. The studies are easy to set up, and the settings are clear to control due to a simplified user interface. There is a variety of data visualizations that not only help with analysis but also are beneficial for screenshotting and sharing in findings reports since different data can be analyzed in different ways. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

The ability to set up a mobile view is not very user friendly and often leads to questionable insights when evaluating design screens. Some of the logic in surveys and post-test questions are not as controllable as I'd like. I do not like the new structure they are planning to switch to where the number of studies will be limited. This is a significant burden to our workflow. We tried to integrate Optimal with Figma but it didn't work well and would not have been suitable for including in a study. With the change in study structure and pricing, I think there are better UX tools out there for a similar price. Optimal's benefit was its low cost and low barrier to entry. However, I don't think it offers the same competitive advantage at a higher price, since it really offers very few differentiators from other products. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Optimal has the most robust research tools on the market. Other tools might offer features for card sorting and tree testing, but they don't come close to Optimal's dynamic analysis tools or robust visual outputs. I've been using it for years, the support is great from Optimal's responsive team, and I love training teammates on the tool because it's so easy to pick up. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

If I'm including multiple audiences for a test, I have to create two separate tests or track manually. It would be great if Optimal allowed you to have multiple recruiting links like Survey Monkey that allows you to compare different audiences.

Also, would love to be able to do moderated testing on Optimal - I think I saw that's coming soon or maybe recently released, so maybe I just need to explore it. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I often turn to Optimal Workshop when working on usability or information architecture questions, and it is my go-to for simple surveys.

What I like best about it is the ease of use (it is very user-friendly on the side of the researcher) and the fact that it provides a good user experience for my research participants.

Lately I have also been enjoying the quick AI summaries of collected survey data, although only as a "at a glance" way to keep up with the data rolling in and not as a final analysis or deliverable. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Nothing, really! More methodologies would be a nice to have, but as a solution I quite like it. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I like Optimal for its exceptional prototyping capabilities, which are easy to set up and intuitive to use. The platform simplifies the validation of ideas and building of prototypes, allowing me to efficiently test and receive rapid feedback on proposed designs. The way results are presented is straightforward and easy to understand, with AI-driven insights that provide valuable metrics like time per task and ease-of-use assessments. Additionally, video highlights supplement my analysis, making the comprehensive performance tracking of prototypes extremely helpful. Overall, Optimal enhances my ability to make informed decisions regarding design directions by providing clear understanding of customer wants and needs. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I find it problematic that sometimes the images for the prototypes come out small on small screens. This issue requires users to zoom in to view details, which can be cumbersome and disrupts the seamless experience. It would be greatly beneficial if they could fix this by ensuring the images retain their intended resolution and size, so users don't have to struggle with viewing them. The change would enhance the usability significantly by allowing users to focus on content rather than image clarity issues. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Feels like it's designed by designers for designers, really intuitive to use and the analysis tools are super helpful and informative.

Tools like tree testing and card sorting are the OG and still best options out there for research and testing in the IA realm. Qualitative insights tool is a definite time saver for capturing notes and pulling together insights.

The participant recruitment is a useful addition and the platform provides clarity on the cost per participant before you commit to using the service.

On the occasions I've needed to use customer support they've been super responsive and helpful.

I've been a heavy user of tree testing and card sorting over the past year or two and have been through a few cycles of benchmarking and subsequent testing of improvements to a large website IA. This has been really impactful and the analysis tools have helped deliver clear insights to stakeholders.

The platform includes code for an intercept widget so you can capture users from a live site if needed.

Also the 101 guides are brilliant resources to guide you through setting up studies. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Not really a dislike but it's a shame that the qualitative insights tool doesn't allow you to upload video and auto generate transcripts, then capture insights based on this, similarly to Dovetail. I understand that the tool is intended to be used while conducting qual interviews /usability tests but I would rather take notes on paper and then come back to do a more detailed annotation after the fact.

Also the marketing website has perhaps oversimplified things and doesn't provide much clarity on exactly what you can do with the tools. For example the prototype testing feature is for remote testing sessions only which isn't super clear on the website. Also the detail of things like the card sort and tree testing features aren't communicated very well on the site apart from in the 101 guides, so potential customers who are practitioners need to dig quite deep to get more details on the capabilities (or start a trial) , which may be the business goal I guess. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I appreciate Optimal's simplicity in creating surveys with ready-made templates that expedite my workflow without much setup needed for introductions or screenings. The ease of use is outstanding, and the user experience design of the forms is simple and unintimidating, encouraging more participants to complete surveys. It's also beneficial how Optimal permits screening out participants who don't align with our study targets, enhancing the relevance of our data collection. Furthermore, I like how Optimal integrates with Figma for prototype testing and plan to integrate it with Usersnap, showcasing its compatibility with other tools we use. Additionally, Optimal was easy to set up initially, posing minimal issues aside from a minor intercept code snippet problem. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I find the unmoderated testing feature in Optimal not very smooth. A significant drawback is the lack of a recording of participant interactions during unmoderated tests. While I can see if participants reach the right completion screen based on their clicks, it leaves much to be desired in terms of insight. Detailed interaction data, such as cursor movement and failed clicks, would be much more informative. Additionally, during the initial setup, we encountered some problems with the intercept code snippet, which posed challenges. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

1. Diverse Tools for Different Research Methods

Optimal supports a variety of UX research needs: card sorting, tree testing, prototype testing, surveys, and qualitative interviews. This range means I can use one platform for much of my workflow rather than stitching together multiple tools.

2. Ease of Setup and Frequency of Use

For most studies, it’s relatively straightforward to get started. Building tasks, uploading prototypes, configuring surveys, or setting up interview note-taking has a decent learning curve, but once familiar, I can move quickly.

3. Analysis Features & Visualisation

The reporting / results dashboards are helpful. Visualisations of how users move through tree tests, what categories they use in sorts, tagging / coding qualitative notes — these help in making patterns visible and communicating findings to stakeholders.

4. Remote & Unmoderated Research Capability

The ability to run unmoderated tests, reach participants remotely, and let them do tasks at their own pace has been very useful. For prototype testing and early feedback, this is efficient and avoids log-jams.

5. Customer Support Resources / Best Practices

There are good help documents, examples, and guides. When in doubt, documentation or articles on best practices (e.g. how to structure a tree test, how to analyse card sort) have been genuinely helpful. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

1. Participant Quality and Recruitment Issues

One recurring issue is that some recruited participants deliver low-quality or superficial responses (for example rushing through tasks, not engaging deeply). If you use Optimal’s participant panel, filtering is possible but still takes effort to manually inspect and discard noise.

2. Survey / Questionnaire Limitations

When I need more advanced logic (branching, conditional questions), or want to customize appearance deeply, the survey features feel somewhat limited. In some cases, once a survey is launched, editing items / rearranging questions isn’t very flexible.

3. Feature Depth vs. Expectation

Because Optimal does many things, some features feel less mature or powerful compared to specialised tools. Prototype testing sometimes lacks some expected capabilities (e.g. richer interaction or session recordings) relative to dedicated usability-testing tools.

4. Cost & Pricing Structure

Depending on how many studies are run, how many participants are recruited, etc., the cost can become significant. If you don’t use all features regularly, you may feel you're paying for more than you need. Also, plans sometimes require commitment or have limited flexibility.

5. Data Access / Subscription Constraints

There are reports / experiences (outside my own or similar to what I’ve seen) that once certain subscription periods lapse, access to past studies or ability to analyse them further is restricted. This can be a concern for longitudinal tracking or revisiting past work.

6. Performance Issues at Larger Scale

With large participant numbers, big datasets, or complex studies, things can slow down. Load times, responsiveness in dashboards, exporting large data sets, etc., may lag, thus affecting the frequency of use.

7. Steep Learning for Some Analysis / Tagging

Especially for qualitative parts (note-taking, tagging themes), there’s a nontrivial overhead in defining tags, keeping consistency, cleaning up duplicates, etc. If your team hasn’t done much qualitative synthesis before, it takes time to establish a process that works well with the tool. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

As someone who uses Optimal rather frequently for work, it is a very easy platform to get the hang of. It is super intuitive to build out surveys and I like the updated layout for survey building. I have also appreciated the AI insights tool pulling out the key takeaways, as it has been a huge timesaver and has made it really easy for me to skim through and start to see themes based on what participants have said. Tree testing, card sorting, and first click testing are all also very easy to use and have been incredibly helpful in validating assumptions about user behaviors for interacting with our clients' websites. I love Optimal and highly recommend it for others who are doing user testing. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I wish there was a way to setup more specific settings for individual questions (example - for ranking questions, making it so that users can only rank their top 3 or for multi-select checkboxes only allowing them to select x number). I don't believe these capabilities currently exist in Optimal and think it could make the platform and survey testing that much better. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.