Lyssna Reviews & Product Details

I found it really, really easy to set up Lyssna and could explore it before I even had to pay. I was amazed by the customer support team who helped me with every question I had within seconds. The team also helped my out when I did a costly mistake. With Lyssna I feel I have someone who got my back, when I need to deliver insights fast. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

There's only one thing I wish was different with Lyssna. As a consultant, I want my clients to purchase the tool instead of me. I'd love to be added as a seat in their solution. But that's not possible if I already have an account with Lyssna. I had to find another email address to make it work. It's a minor issue with a simple solution. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I like how results are released quickly, it helps us ux designers to make quicker, faster decisions and iterations. I also like the fact that you can select the kind of audience you want and actually make groups for this. I like that customer support is easy to access and the option is right there on the screen. Running the tests is also pretty straight forward. I use it like once a quarter and intend to use it more often going forward. A large pool of humans who can validate my designs for me is great and makes publishing the tests easier and faster, leading to faster implementation (ease of implementation). Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Finding the studies that I have published through my account in an enterprise subscription is not easy. I still am struggling with finding my past user studies. It'd be great if Lysnaa could sum up the usability test findings in a document/presentation for me, integration will be easier that way. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Honestly, it’s the speed. I mainly use it for five-second tests and preference tests, and I can get something live in about 15–20 minutes, which for research tooling is perfect. The results are also easy to read, I can pull a screenshot straight into a doc, and it actually makes sense to someone who wasn’t in the room. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

The panel quality is a bit inconsistent if I'm being honest. You'll get responses where someone has clearly just clicked through as fast as possible to collect their reward, and there's not a great way to weed those out without doing it by hand. Also the pricing has gone up since the rebrand from UsabilityHub and I do feel it a little. Nothing dealbreaking but worth knowing going in. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I like that I'm able to conduct UXR in one hub. I haven't explored all the different types of tests, but I enjoy that I'm not responsible for external recruitment if I don't have to be. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

There have been multiple instances in which my changes were not being saved and I lost entire studies that I had spent time working on, which was really frustrating. I wish it operated like Google Suite, where changes are saved almost immediately on the cloud with the option to Undo, Redo, and view Version History should I choose.

I also find the flow of some of the tests to be a bit odd, specifically A/B testing as a UX Designer. I've found myself having to administer 2 First-Click tests instead to achieve the results that a A/B test would otherwise give me if not administered through Lyssna. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

It's a great tool that I, as a UX Researcher, can use to quickly gather feedback about our live website and the prototypes that my fellow UX Designers are making for the team. This makes the voice of the customer more important to our company and advocates a great UX. Also, customer support is through the roof: always very helpful and accomodating. Feedback is brought to the developer team, so things that are missing constantly evolve. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Not many downsides, only that the questionnaire logic is a bit more basic than dedicated Survey tools.

But the fact that you can record live website behavior and people interacting with a prototype, and even do audio recordings, make it a tool that we are very happy to use. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

The interface is intuitive and the AI really helps to gather better responses and in turn, really speeds up and helps with analysing the results Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Customer support is mostly articles it was easy enough to figure things out but it would have been great to speak to a person in the early days Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Super fast feedback

Easy to set up and run tests

Flexible formats for different research needs

Solid panel reach Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Prototype builder could use more flexibility

Pricing model can get tricky with targeting

The AI summary combines all responses in preference tests, so it ends up being too generic and not that useful. 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.

Easy to use and understand results. Fun, unique research opportunities that are easy to implement. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

The limit to 5 minute unmoderated research on the basic plan. Wish we had 10 mins. Also, I edited a study and didn't realize I needed to create a new link to share, which means I sent out a broken link. So I think the UI design could improve when publishing studies. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

It’s comparable to other powerful tools and very close to meeting all my needs—just a bit shy on some of the functionalities noted in my recommendations. The customer service and support, however, are excellent. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Recommendations:

More flexible logic for screener questions to route into card sorts and other test types.

Segment recruiting with expanded screener options (beyond 4).

Cap participants per screener/demographic for balanced samples.

Save and reuse participant pools from past studies as well as select them to be invited.

Support hybrid card sorts (open + closed), allowing participants to name categories or create subcategories.

Provide dendrograms for card sort results.

Show accurate recruitment timelines.

Send notifications as participant quotas fill. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.