Usability testing companies
Five companies ranked on usability testing: sessions with real users, clear findings and the fixes that follow. UUX Studio leads, with small studies from $10,000, and published rates run from $50 to $150 an hour, with minimums from $10,000.
5 companies assessed · Last reviewed September 30, 2026
Compare the companies
Showing 5 of 5 companies
Under $50k — remove this filter $50k to $150k — remove this filter Over $150k — remove this filter Up to 50 people — remove this filter 51 to 250 people — remove this filter Over 250 people — remove this filter North America — remove this filter Europe — remove this filter Clear filters-
Rank 1
UX Studio
The research-led choice for testing before you redesign
Description
UX Studio treats usability testing as a core service rather than an add-on to design work. It runs usability tests with real users and UX audits of products that already exist, then turns the results into written findings a product team can act on without a workshop to explain them. Research is its strongest column and the second highest on this page. One verified example is an activation-rate project for the crypto platform Zignaly, where success was measured on sign-up conversion rather than on opinion. Design is handed over rather than built, so engineering has to come from elsewhere, and independent signals is its weakest column. Based in Budapest with forty to seventy people, it can start with a small, defined study, which makes it a practical first step before a larger redesign is scoped.
- Live product quality
- 7.8
- UX structural depth
- 8.2
- Research evidence
- 8.9
- Accessibility, tested
- 7.7
- Post-handoff coherence
- 7.9
- Independent signals
- 7.6
- Best for
- Testing an existing product before a redesign is scoped
- Notable clients
- HBO, Vodafone, Google
- Entry price
- $ · $50-99 an hour · from $10k
- Founded
- 2013
-
Rank 2
Yummygum
Polished prototypes for testing, with research bought elsewhere
Description
Yummygum suits teams that want to test a polished interface rather than a rough prototype. Live product quality is its strongest column, and brand and product design come from the same fifteen-to-thirty-person studio in Amsterdam, so what users see in a test looks close to the finished product. That helps when the question is whether people trust and understand a screen, not just whether they can complete a task. The limitation shows in the scores: its research is the weakest on this page, so Yummygum is better at acting on findings than at designing the study that produces them. Pair it with a research-led company if you need a structured test plan, recruited participants and a written analysis of what went wrong and why. Its working hours suit European teams better than West Coast ones.
- Live product quality
- 8.4
- UX structural depth
- 7.7
- Research evidence
- 6.9
- Accessibility, tested
- 7.2
- Post-handoff coherence
- 7.6
- Independent signals
- 7.3
- Best for
- Testing how a near-final interface looks and feels
- Notable clients
- Framer, Revolut, Zapier
- Entry price
- $$ · $100–150 an hour · from $10k
- Founded
- 2010
-
Rank 3
Boldare
Testing built into design and development under one contract
Description
Boldare fits teams that want testing built into a full product cycle rather than bought as a separate study. Discovery, design and development sit under one contract, so the same team can test a prototype with users, change it and build it, without a handover between vendors. Research is its strongest column, and its team of 150 to 250 people in Poland can keep testing running alongside delivery when the workload grows. The trade-off is independence: a company that also builds has a reason to read test results as a case for building more. Ask what it has advised a client to cut after testing, and expect a specific example. US teams should agree on overlap hours early, because live sessions with users need someone available to watch and decide.
- Live product quality
- 7.6
- UX structural depth
- 7.9
- Research evidence
- 8.0
- Accessibility, tested
- 7.3
- Post-handoff coherence
- 7.5
- Independent signals
- 7.2
- Best for
- Teams that want testing, design and build from one vendor
- Notable clients
- BNP Paribas, Zeiss, Drive Lease
- Entry price
- $ · $50–99 an hour · from $25k
- Founded
- 2004
-
Rank 4
Fuselab Creative
Usability testing for dashboards and data-heavy products
Description
Fuselab Creative tests products where usability problems are easy to miss and costly to ship: dashboards, analytics tools, AI interfaces and SaaS platforms where people must read dense information correctly. Its research score is the highest on this page, and the team that runs the sessions also redesigns the screens, so findings become changes without a handover. Its tested accessibility is the highest in this ranking. Its work includes the Grid AI machine-learning dashboard and the Aircraft Bluebook valuation platform, for clients such as Google, Uber and Fiserv. Independent signals is its weakest column, with fewer awards and directory mentions than its other scores suggest. With thirty to fifty people, it suits a defined product rather than a continuous research programme across many teams.
- Live product quality
- 9.4
- UX structural depth
- 9.2
- Research evidence
- 9.3
- Accessibility, tested
- 9.7
- Post-handoff coherence
- 9.4
- Independent signals
- 7.4
- Best for
- Dashboards and data-heavy products that must be read correctly
- Notable clients
- NASA, NIH, Fiserv, DHCS, Uber
- Entry price
- $$ · $100–149 an hour · from $25k
- Founded
- 2017
- Sources
- Clutch, DesignRush, GoodFirms
-
Rank 5
Mission Control
A new San Francisco studio for early tests with local users
Description
Mission Control is a San Francisco studio founded in 2025, with ten to twenty people. It suits early-stage teams that want to test a first version with users close to the Bay Area market, with a local team the founders can meet in person. Live product quality is its strongest column. Its research evidence is modest, and its tested accessibility and independent signals are the lowest on this page. That reflects how little can be verified so far, not work that was examined and found poor. There is no published client list yet, and no product old enough to show how its work holds up over time. Ask for references and an example of a test plan before signing, and confirm who will run the sessions, since a single departure changes the team.
- Live product quality
- 8.1
- UX structural depth
- 7.9
- Research evidence
- 7.2
- Accessibility, tested
- 7.0
- Post-handoff coherence
- 7.4
- Independent signals
- 6.6
- Best for
- Bay Area founders testing a first version
- Notable clients
- Undisclosed early-stage portfolio
- Entry price
- $$ · - an hour · from -
- Founded
- 2025
- No company on this page matches every filter. Clear filters
What this page covers
These five companies run usability testing: sessions where real people try to complete real tasks while a researcher watches what happens. Some run the study and hand over findings. Others also redesign the screens and build the changes. Published rates run from $50 to $150 an hour, and a first study can start from $10,000.
Test at the right moment
Testing is most useful at three points. Before a redesign, it shows what is actually broken, so the budget goes on real problems rather than guesses. During design, testing prototypes catches mistakes before anything is built, when they are cheapest to fix. After launch, a short round confirms that the changes worked. Teams that test only once, at the end, usually find problems too late to fix them properly.
What makes a test worth paying for
A useful test has three things. The tasks are realistic, taken from what people actually do with the product, not from a feature list. The participants are real users or close matches, not colleagues or friends. And the findings are ranked by how badly each problem blocks people, so the team knows what to fix first. A report that lists fifty problems with equal weight is hard to act on.
Recruiting is where tests go wrong
Finding the right participants takes more time and money than running the sessions. Consumer products can usually recruit quickly. Business software, medical tools and products for specialists are harder, because the right users are busy and few. Ask each company who recruits participants, how they are screened, and what they are paid. If the answer is “we’ll use your team”, the results will describe your team, not your users.
Testing only, or testing and fixing
The companies here differ in what happens after the sessions:
- UX Studio runs the study and hands over clear findings, so your own team makes the changes.
- Fuselab Creative and Boldare can also redesign what the test uncovers, and Boldare can build it.
- Yummygum is stronger at acting on findings than at designing the study itself.
Having one company test and fix saves a handover, but the company that will be paid for the fixes has a reason to find more of them. Ask what a past study showed did not need changing.
What to ask before signing
Ask for a sample report. It shows how the company thinks better than any portfolio does. Look for evidence from the sessions, such as clips, quotes and task results, not just opinions.
Ask who will run the sessions. At a small studio it may be one researcher, and their availability sets your timeline.
Ask how many people will take part, and who they are. Several small rounds with fixes in between usually teach more than one large study.
Related rankings
If the test results point to a rebuild rather than a fix, see the product redesign ranking. For help deciding what to do with the findings, see UX consulting. If your users include people with disabilities, which they almost certainly do, pair testing with an accessibility audit.
Common questions
What are the best usability testing companies?
UX Studio leads this ranking and offers small, defined studies from $10,000. Fuselab Creative has the highest research score on the page and specialises in dashboards and data-heavy products. Boldare suits teams that want testing, design and build from one vendor, and Yummygum suits testing a near-final interface.
How much does usability testing cost?
Published rates on this page run from $50 to $150 an hour, with minimums from $10,000 at UX Studio and Yummygum and $25,000 at Boldare and Fuselab Creative. The cost depends mostly on how many rounds you run, how hard your users are to recruit, and whether the company also fixes what it finds.
How many users do we need to test with?
Usually fewer than people expect. Small rounds of about five people per type of user reveal most of the serious problems, and several small rounds with fixes in between teach you more than one large study. Add more participants when you need numbers to compare designs, not just to find problems.
What is the difference between moderated and unmoderated testing?
In a moderated test, a researcher watches each session live and can ask follow-up questions, which shows why people struggle. In an unmoderated test, people complete tasks on their own with recording software, which is faster and cheaper at larger numbers but explains less. Many studies combine both.
When should we run usability testing?
Before a redesign, to find out what is actually broken. During design, to test prototypes before anything is built. After launch, to check that changes worked. Testing early is cheapest, because a problem found in a prototype costs far less to fix than one found in a released product.
What should we receive at the end of a study?
A short written report with each problem ranked by how badly it blocks people, clips or quotes that show it happening, and a clear recommendation for each fix. Ask to see a sample report before signing. A slide deck of opinions without evidence from the sessions is not enough.
Is usability testing the same as an accessibility audit?
No. Usability testing checks whether typical users can complete their tasks. An accessibility audit checks whether people with disabilities can use the product, against standards such as WCAG. Products used by the public usually need both. See the accessibility audit ranking for companies that do the second.
Last reviewed September 30, 2026