Maze Alternative

The Maze alternative for B2B SaaS teams that need qualitative UX findings

Maze reports task completion rates and click paths. The reasoning behind a hesitation or a drop-off is not in the report. Tessary runs AI personas with the right domain context through your prototype and returns structured UX findings in minutes, without recruiting.

Start testing with Tessary

Output: Qualitative UX findings, not click data
Recruiting: Not required at any step
Starting price: Free, no credit card

Two Approaches

What each tool gives you

Maze is a solid product for quantitative prototype testing. Once a project needs deeper qualitative insight, the product runs out of room.

Maze

Quantitative prototype testing

Task completion rates and click paths
Native Figma integration, fast setup
Findings ship without the reasoning behind a drop-off
Generic panel — no domain context for B2B
Built around research ops, not a PM in a sprint

Tessary

Qualitative findings with domain-matched personas

Structured findings with the reasoning attached
AI personas carry role, vocabulary, and goals of your actual user
Works on Figma prototypes and live URLs
No recruiting, no panel queue, no scheduling
A PM can run a test and share findings the same afternoon

The Gap

Where Maze runs out of room

The pattern in Maze reviews on G2 is consistent: click data without the why, and a reporting view that does not combine across studies.

2–5 days

Typical participant-panel wait before a Maze study returns usable sessions, plus hours spent reviewing the recordings.

$99/mo

Maze paid plans start here and scale with seat count.

maze.co/pricing

"Reporting"

The most-cited gap in Maze reviews on G2 — aggregate click metrics, limited cross-study synthesis.

G2 reviews

How It Works

From prototype to findings in minutes

No scheduling, no incentives, no waiting on participants to confirm a session.

Configure a persona
Describe the user: role, domain, and what they are trying to accomplish. A product designer at a financial data SaaS reads as a different persona than a procurement manager at a logistics platform.
Run the test
The AI agent navigates your Figma prototype or live URL in a real browser, working from the persona’s domain knowledge rather than a generic participant’s.
Read structured findings
You get a report of where the persona hesitated, what it missed, and the reasoning behind each issue, organized so you can act on it the same day. No transcription, no synthesis session.

Side by Side

Tessary vs. Maze

	Tessary	Maze
Output type	Qualitative UX findings	Click data and task completion rates
Domain expertise	AI personas match your actual user type	Generic participants or panel
Speed to findings	Minutes	Setup time, plus participant wait
Recruiting required	No	Optional, but adds time and cost
Works on	Figma prototypes and live URLs	Primarily prototypes
Reporting	Structured findings per session, shareable	Aggregate click metrics, limited cross-study
Starting price	Free tier: $0/mo · Team: Early Access	From $99/mo, scales with seats
Best for	B2B SaaS PMs who need qualitative depth	Designers running quantitative click tests

When Maze is the better fit

Tessary is not for every workflow. Here is when Maze still wins.

You need quantitative click-path data or task completion rates across 50+ participants.
Your research program is run by a dedicated research ops team, not individual PMs.

From the field

Maze is great when you already know what to measure. The moment the question is 'why are they bouncing here?', the report stops being useful and the team starts watching recordings one at a time.

Senior PM, vertical SaaSMaze user, evaluating alternatives

Also evaluating UserTesting?See Tessary vs. UserTesting

FAQ

Common questions

Maze gives you quantitative click data: task completion rates, misclick rates, and heatmaps. If you need statistical data across a large panel, Maze covers that. Tessary does not produce click metrics. Tessary produces qualitative findings: the reasoning behind a hesitation, the confusion behind a drop-off. That is the input most B2B SaaS teams need to make a design decision before a sprint closes.

Yes. Paste your Figma share link and Tessary runs AI personas directly on the prototype, with no export, no plugin, and no additional setup. It also works on live URLs, which Maze is not primarily designed for.

For directional decisions like "is this flow confusing?" or "where do users stall?", AI personas configured with the right domain context are faster and more consistent than a small cohort of generic participants. For research requiring lived experience or emotional nuance, combine Tessary with occasional moderated sessions.

There is nothing to migrate. Tessary works from a URL. Paste your Figma share link or staging URL and your first test is running within minutes. No export, no plugin install, no onboarding call required.

Tessary has a free tier with 3 sessions per month, no credit card required. Maze paid plans start at $99 a month and scale with seat count and research volume.

Keep exploring

Get Started

Test your next prototype this afternoon.

Paste a Figma share link or live URL, set up a persona that matches your actual user, and read structured UX findings before the sprint check-in. Free tier, no credit card.

Start testing with Tessary3 sessions per month on the free plan. No credit card, no recruiting required.