Maze and Hubble are increasingly popular platforms that focus on serving enterprise customers in the UX research space. As product teams at large organizations demand more scalable, secure, and integrated research solutions, both platforms are evolving their offerings to meet these needs. From enhanced compliance and security features to dedicated support and advanced analytics, Maze and Hubble are tailoring their tools to support the complex workflows and high standards of enterprise UX teams.

• Cost - what are their pricing plans and how do they differ?
• User experience & collaboration - how easy is the platform to utilize between different collaborators within an organization?
• Core Features - What types of tests and insights can be collected? What are some of the AI capabilities?
• Participant pool quality - how good are the B2B and B2C participants that can be recruited?
• Factors to consider - What key factors should buyers consider when evaluating Hubble vs. Maze?

Executive Summary - TL;DR

Here are some key differences betweeen Hubble and Maze:

Study-wide recording: Hubble offers study-wide recording capabilities with the ability to obtain single video recordings that combine multiple tasks. Maze does not support study-wide recording, which can be a limitation especially if you are looking to switch from UserTesting.

Deeper participant pool with integrations: Hubble provides User Interviews & Respondent powered participants for all types of studies while Maze sources participants from Cint and Prolific for unmoderated studies and Respondent for moderated interviews. Hubble's set of API partners offers the deepest reach and quality for both consumer and professional services recruitment.

AI Moderated Interviews: Hubble offers the ability to add AI-assisted questions within an unmoderated study while Maze offers a separate module to run AI moderated interviews.

Video Analysis & Tagging: Hubble offers the ability to produce transcripts for unmoderated studies combined with the ability to create detailed tags and video synthesis while Maze does not.

‍

Upgrade your enterprise research.

Request a Demo

‍

Hubble vs. Maze: A General Comparison

Ratings from G2

‍

Pricing Plans

Before diving into a detailed feature comparison between Maze and Hubble we wanted to present a quick summary of Maze's plans including their cost and the features that are included in each of the plans.

Below is a summary of Hubble's pricing plans:

‍

Ease of Use & User Experience

Study Building Experience

Both platforms are designed to be user-friendly, with intuitive interfaces that are simpler and more streamlined than those of competitors like UserTesting, UserZoom, and Userlytics. Hubble and Maze both offer drag-and-drop study builders, making it easy to reorder questions and structure studies efficiently. They also provide a wide range of templates tailored to various use cases, allowing users to quickly launch research without having to create every question from scratch.

When it comes to importing prototypes for usability testing, Hubble stands out for its ability to handle more complex and interaction-heavy Figma prototypes with ease. While it's always recommended to follow best practices when optimizing Figma files, Hubble can import and process heavier prototypes more reliably than Maze.

One key difference in navigation lies in how each platform structures access to core features. Hubble uses a modular system with three main tabs: in-product surveys, unmoderated studies, and participant recruitment. Maze, on the other hand, organizes workflows under a “Projects” tab alongside a tester database, requiring users to open individual studies within each project. Hubble’s structure allows for faster access to key workflows such as launching surveys, writing screener questions, recruiting participants, and viewing real-time user activity data.

Team Collaboration

Hubble and Maze both make it easy to create research studies, collect responses, and share results. They offer simple tools for inviting collaborators to a workspace and seamlessly sharing insights with stakeholders. Both platforms also integrate with Slack, allowing teams to receive real-time notifications as participant responses come in.

Core Features: A Detailed Comparison of Maze vs Hubble

Hubble and Maze both offer multiple different types of research. Both tools offer a variety of features, making them stand out versus other tools that only offer a single feature. However, Hubble and Maze do have pros and cons that must be considered when making a decision for a user research platform.

Core Features: Hubble vs. Maze

Hubble and Maze are the market leading unmoderated tools that can be used to collect user insights across all stages with speed and scale. Hubble is an all-in-one research tool with the flexibility to conduct research with both external participants and active product users. Hubble’s test types include usability tests, prototype tests and card sorting tests. With these tools, product managers, UX designers and UX researchers can collect user feedback across all stages of product development from both external participants and product users. Hubble and Maze provide valuable quantitative data points including heat maps, click data, success paths, completion rates, and time spent on each task. These powerful data points make it a good fit for fast moving product builders that leverage various types of feedback data and research to be able to make user-centric decisions.

Study-Wide Recording

Unlike Maze, Hubble provides full study-wide recordings for unmoderated research sessions, allowing teams to review participant interactions in detail and uncover deeper insights. With Hubble, you can watch how users navigate your prototype or website, hear their thought process in context, and revisit key moments—all of which are essential for rich qualitative analysis. Maze, by contrast, does not support full session recordings, limiting visibility into participant behavior and making it harder to capture the nuances behind their responses. This will be a particularly important feature if you are trying to migrate from UserTesting as this is how UserTesting's unmoderated studies work.

‍

Variants for Prototype Testing

Hubble supports unlimited prototype links, allowing teams to test as many Figma or web-based prototypes as they need without restrictions. Whether you're iterating on multiple design versions, running parallel experiments, or testing across different user segments, Hubble makes it easy to collect feedback at scale. This flexibility empowers product and UX teams to move faster, make informed decisions, and continuously improve designs—without worrying about hitting platform limits.

‍

AI Moderated Interviews

Maze offers a live site testing feature that can be used with sites that have a javascript SDK installed. Although the SDK allows for features like webcam recording and heatmaps, it requires the installation and maintenance of the SDK in the production code which requires time and effort from the engineering team. The SDK also limits the recording viewport size, which makes it difficult to collect feedback on live sites on wide screen monitors or laptops with greater than 13 inch displays.

Live Website Testing

Maze offers a live site testing feature that can be used with sites that have a javascript SDK installed. Although the SDK allows for features like webcam recording and heatmaps, it requires the installation and maintenance of the SDK in the production code which requires time and effort from the engineering team. The SDK also limits the recording viewport size, which makes it difficult to collect feedback on live sites on wide screen monitors or laptops with greater than 13 inch displays.

Hubble also offers live site testing that does not require an SDK installation, so the preparation that is needed to get started is very light. In addition, Hubble's live site test allows you to test and research all websites (instead of yours only that has an SDK installed, so it offers more versatile use cases.

Moderated Interviews

Both Hubble and Maze offer capabilities for conducting moderated user interviews, enabling teams to gather in-depth qualitative insights directly from participants. These sessions are typically conducted live via video calls, allowing researchers to ask questions, probe deeper into user behavior, and observe reactions in real time. Both platform offer integrations to zoom, google meet as well as Microsoft teams to be able to recruit both external participants and internal users.

‍

Study Results

Hubble and Maze offer easy ways to share study results to anyone within the team. Maze offers easy ways to generate insight reports while Hubble offers AI summarization features for text-based questions so that you can summarize insights quickly and effectively.

Video Analysis & Tagging

Hubble’s video analysis and tagging capabilities go beyond what Maze currently offers by providing automated, AI-powered synthesis that identifies key moments, tags critical insights, and surfaces themes across sessions—all without manual review. Researchers can quickly scan transcripts, highlight notable quotes, and generate summaries that are structured and actionable. Unlike Maze, which offers limited video functionality and lacks deep post-session analysis, Hubble is built to support end-to-end qualitative synthesis, making it especially valuable for teams running moderated interviews or unmoderated think-aloud sessions. This enables faster insight extraction and streamlines the entire research-to-insight workflow.

‍

Research Participant Pools

Maze and Hubble both offer integrations with participant pools so that teams can conduct research with external participants. For unmoderated studies, Maze offers a partnership with Prolific, which provides 200K+ participants from 38+ countries. For moderated studies, Maze offers an integration with Respondent.

Hubble offers 3 million participants from Respondent and 4 million participants from UserInterviews for all methodologies including unmoderated and moderated. Even for unmoderated studies, Hubble offers participants powered by Respondent and UserInterviews which are the top quality research pools in the market. Hubble offers a unique benefit to be able to recruit participants from the top two participant providers of the market at favorable prices.

Hubble’s participant pool stands out from Maze by offering seamless access to high-quality, vetted users through integrations with both Respondent and User Interviews—two of the most trusted B2B and consumer research panels in the industry. This gives researchers unparalleled reach across a wide range of professional backgrounds, demographics, and user types. In contrast, Maze primarily relies on its internal tester panel and integration with Prolific, which tends to be more academic-focused and less suited for niche or enterprise B2B audiences. With Hubble, teams can recruit more targeted participants for both moderated and unmoderated studies, ensuring higher relevance, better data quality, and faster turnaround for research projects. If you want to have access to the widest pool of high quality participant, Hubble is the only research platform that offers acccess to both platforms.

‍

‍

In-Product Surveys

Below is a quick comparison of Hubble vs Maze's in-product SDK and surveying capabilities:

In-product research support is a crucial feature for newer generation research tools because it allows teams to collect user insights across the product development cycle. Instead of solely relying on email-based participant recruitment or using external panels, teams can leverage in-product surveying to quickly launch studies, synthesize results and gather research insights from actual users of the product. In-product surveying allows both Hubble and Maze to provide more versatility and speed relative to other research tools in the market that don't offer an in-product SDK. However, there are major differences between Hubble and Maze when it comes to the capability and power of the in-product SDKs.

User Segmentation & Targeting

Hubble's in-product SDK offers the ability to track user events and identify users natively. Using the track and identify calls included in the SDK, Hubble users can create segments and groups so that they can collect feedback, ask for participation and even opt people in for moderated interviews from a specific group of users as opposed to targeting all page visitors. In order to expedite the installation and use of identify & track, Hubble also offers a Segment destination integration so that Segment users can quickly install Hubble and process events and attributes without having to manually install the Hubble SDK.

On the contrary, Maze's in-product prompt does not offer the ability to target specific users based on attributes or events. Maze does offer an integration with Amplitude cohorts so that you can launch prompts to a select Amplitude cohort but it doesn't offer the full capabilities of identifying and tracking that Hubble's in-product SDK provides natively.

What are some of the factors that I should consider when choosing between Maze and Hubble?

Now that we have made a detailed comparison between Maze and Hubble, it’s time to think about what are some of the important factors to consider when choosing between the two. Selecting the right tool that can cover your needs will ensure that the research results make the most impact and the product research endeavors continue to drive ROI within the company.

1. Testing Method

Modern product teams need to have access to different types of research methodologies in their research and design process. Maze is great if you need to run prototype tests and collect quantitative data, but it doesn’t have a large, US-focused participant pool for unmoderated tests and it’s capabilities to collect insights from actual users in the product is limited.

So, if you need to run usability tests, prototype tests and also collect in-product research insights, you should consider Hubble. Hubble provides various key methods of user feedback including heat maps, card sorting, surveys and in-product feedback. You can also get access to 4 million research participants from more than 150 countries powered by Respondent and User Interviews, which are the top two participant providers in the world.

2. Ease of Setup

You need to consider how fast and easy it is to setup a study and integrate with your existing tools such as Figma, Segment and other analytics tools. Some of the other considerations include:

• SDK support to be able to collect survey responses and send recruitment requests to in-product users
• Easy experience for testers, with intuitive tester UI / UX
• Has a high quality pool of vetted testers that you can use for your testing purposes
• Pre-set templates that you can utilize to reduce the amount of time it takes to launch a study and collect responses

3. Integrations with Other Tools

Maze offers integrations with Figma, AdobeXD, InVision and other design tools. Most of the teams nowadays use Figma, so having a good integration with Figma is table stakes for the user research tool to be effective for any team.

However, Maze only supports an integration with Amplitude cohorts and it doesn’t offer integrations with other user data & analytics platforms to power in-product research and user recruitment. If you are looking for a more versatile tool that can help you collect feedback across the product development cycle (both pre-launch and post-launch feedback), Hubble is a better option.

4. Scalability

Maze recently has made some changes to its price plans and it has limited the starter and team plans to only support a limited number of studies (the existing starter plan now only supports 12 studies per year). This may be okay for smaller teams that don’t have that many researchers or are not running many studies but if you want to be able to launch may studies and surveys without limits, you can opt into Hubble's organization plans.

Maze is a tool that is very easy to use and has been used by many freelancers and smaller startups, but it has some limitations if you are looking to adopt a single tool for continuous research across the product development cycle. Most importantly, Maze’s paid plans limit the number of studies per month which can restrain product teams from maximizing the UX research insights they can collect.

Moreover, while Maze provides different types of unmoderated research features, it does not provide a full set of features to be able to collect in-product insights from actual users. If you are looking for more sophisticated all-round capabilities and an extensive panel focused on the US market, there are several other tools that can better serve your needs. Maze provides participants from Prolific for unmoderated, while Hubble offers Respondent and User Interviews participants for all methodologies.

Conclusion

Maze and Hubble are both popular next-gen user research tools that can help product teams understand their users better. Maze offers strong features for unmoderated testing. If you want to have access to more complex features for unmoderated, in-product surveys and a higher quality participant pool for all methodologies, consider Hubble as an option.

If you are interested in finding other UX research tools available in the market, we recommend some of the articles below:

• To learn more about top UX research tools, please see the best user research tools
  
  • To see our curated list of survey tools, see the best survey tools for research
• See a full list of Maze alternatives

Upgrade your enterprise research.

Request a Demo