---
name: sales-userfeel
description: "Userfeel (userfeel.com) platform help — panel-based usability testing built for multilingual/international research: unmoderated + moderated sessions, card sorting, tree testing, and surveys on websites, mobile apps, and Figma/Adobe XD prototypes, in 40+ languages across 40+ countries, with an AI Assistant that drafts scenarios from a URL, AI session summaries, sentiment analysis, built-in SUS ratings, and timestamped transcripts. UI-only — no public API, webhooks, Zapier, or MCP; data-out is video download, plain text, or Excel/CSV. Use when testing a site in non-English markets, testers gaming your screener, tester feedback too shallow, recordings cut off at the time cap, sharing session videos, or confused by legacy pay-per-test pricing vs the current annual credit plans. Do NOT use for choosing between usability tools or the validate-before-building method (use /sales-idea-validation), or an API-native research pipeline (use /sales-userintuition)."
argument-hint: "[describe what you need help with in Userfeel]"
license: MIT
version: 1.0.1
tags: [sales, pre-launch, platform]
---

# Userfeel Platform Help

Userfeel (userfeel.com) is a **panel-based usability-testing platform** whose one real differentiator is
**language and country coverage** — **40+ languages**, testers in **40+ countries**, plus a B2B panel. It is
the pick when you need to watch **real people in a market you don't speak** attempt tasks on your site, app,
or prototype. It runs the fuller battery (**unmoderated** + **moderated** sessions, **card sorting**, **tree
testing**, **surveys**) with **AI Assistant** scenario drafting, **AI session summaries**, **sentiment
analysis**, built-in **SUS** ratings, and searchable timestamped transcripts.

**Three things to say almost every time** (all are Step 4 imperatives — see there for detail): a clean
session is **not validated demand**; Userfeel is **UI-only** (no API/webhooks/Zapier/MCP); and its
**published pricing changed while the review web stayed stale** — never quote a per-test figure from a review.

## Step 1 — Gather context

If `references/learnings.md` exists, read it first for accumulated platform knowledge. Ask only what you
can't infer:

1. **What do you want from Userfeel?** (A) **Set up a study** — tasks/scenarios, test type (unmoderated /
   moderated / card sort / tree test / survey), device · (B) **Recruit testers** — panel + screeners vs your
   own users; targeting a country/language · (C) **Read results** — AI summaries, sentiment, SUS, transcripts
   · (D) **Fix bad sessions** — gamed screeners, shallow feedback, getting them replaced · (E) **Get data
   out** — video / plain text / Excel-CSV, sharing videos (no API) · (F) **Understand pricing** — legacy
   per-test figures vs the current annual credit plans · (G) **Choose** — Userfeel vs UserTesting /
   Userbrain / Lyssna / UXtweak
2. **What language and country do you need testers in?** This is Userfeel's whole reason to exist — if the
   answer is "US English only," a cheaper peer probably fits better; say so.
3. **Are you testing something you've already built/designed, or still deciding whether to build?** The
   second is an idea-validation question, not a usability question — flag it in Step 2.

Skip-ahead: if the user's prompt already names the task and their question is specific, go to Step 3.

## Step 2 — Route or answer directly

| If the user's question is about… | Route to |
|---|---|
| Comparing usability/research tools across the market, or the validate-before-building **method** | `/sales-idea-validation {question}` |
| An **API / webhook / MCP-native** research or interview pipeline (Userfeel has none) | `/sales-userintuition {question}` |
| Running a **real behavior** demand test (smoke-test page, waitlist, pre-sale) instead of a usability test | `/sales-idea-validation` or `/sales-funnel` `{question}` |
| Recruiting participants as a **standalone marketplace** (no testing tool attached) | `/sales-respondent {question}` |
| Analyzing **existing** NPS/CSAT/VoC feedback (post-launch, not new tests) | `/sales-customer-feedback {question}` |

When routing, give the exact command: "This is a {domain} question — run: `/sales-idea-validation {original question}`"

Otherwise, answer Userfeel-specific questions using Step 3.

## Step 3 — Userfeel platform reference

**Read `references/platform-guide.md`** for the full reference — the capability/automation-surface table, the
two pricing stories (legacy per-test vs current annual credits) and plan gates, the Study → Task → Tester →
Session data model, the panel-vs-own-testers split and where "7M+ testers" comes from, how to write tasks
that survive translation, and the no-API data-out playbook. Userfeel has **no public API**, so there is no
API-reference file. Answer using only the relevant section — don't dump the full reference.

## Step 4 — Actionable guidance

You no longer need the platform guide — focus on the user's specific situation.

- **Quote pricing as two conflicting stories, and say which one is live.** Every review site (G2, Capterra,
  UXtweak, GetApp) still describes Userfeel as **pay-as-you-go, ~$30–$180/test, no subscription** — its
  historical reputation, and **stale**. The **live pricing page** now leads with **Solo / Team / Enterprise
  annual plans from ~$2,250/year** on **credits** (1 credit ≈ 1 unmoderated session, valid one year, panel
  *or* your own participants), Solo/Team amounts behind a signup or demo. Tell the user to **confirm at
  userfeel.com/pricing**, never budget off a review article, and flag every figure as best-effort.
- **Say where the "7M+ testers" number comes from.** Userfeel sources participants through the **User
  Interviews Recruit API** — UI's panel is 6M+, and *they* handle vetting, screening, scheduling, and
  incentive payments; Userfeel's own panel is cited at **150k–850k**. So panel-quality complaints are partly
  a **User Interviews** story, and the headline isn't like-for-like against a first-party panel.
- **Flag it as UI-only whenever automation or export comes up.** **No public API, webhooks, Zapier, or MCP**
  (verify current docs — it may change). If they mention seeing an "API" listed as a feature, tell them
  **Capterra's feature grid ticks an "API" box that nothing backs** — no developer portal, documentation, or
  published endpoint — so they should stop hunting. Data-out is **manual**: download the session **video**,
  export raw results as **plain text** or **Excel/CSV**, copy the **transcript**, or share a **highlight
  video**. Warn that **sharing a session video means downloading and re-uploading** it (e.g. to YouTube) —
  there is no clean share link. If they need a programmatic pipeline, say so plainly and route to
  `/sales-userintuition`.
- **When testers game the screener, tighten screening — don't just blame the panel.** The #1 complaint is
  testers **misrepresenting language fluency or job title**. Say why screening rigor is their real leverage:
  Userfeel **recruits via the User Interviews Recruit API** rather than vetting each tester itself, and
  targeting beyond demographics is coarse — the screener is the actual filter, not the tool choice. Tell them
  to use **unlimited screener questions** with **knowledge-based** qualifiers a faker can't guess, **written
  in the target language** (make them *describe* their workflow, not tick "I'm a developer"), and — critically
  — use the **Replace-a-Tester guarantee**: report the session in-platform for a **free replacement / credit
  refund**. It covers participants who **failed to follow your instructions**, not just audio/technical
  faults — most users eat bad sessions instead of reporting them.
- **When feedback is shallow, fix the tasks.** Testers who narrate the page or say "looks easy" got vague or
  leading tasks. Write **goal-based scenarios with no hints** ("You want to return an item you bought last
  week — do it"), escalate difficulty, add **open follow-ups** ("what did you expect?"), and — per Userfeel's
  own guidance — **avoid using the same words that appear in your interface**, the most common leading-task
  mistake. Keep wording and order **identical across participants** so sessions compare.
- **Warn about the ceilings before they design the study.** Unmoderated sessions have a **strict recording
  cap that cuts off mid-session** — scope to **fewer, tighter tasks** and put anything long or exploratory
  into a **moderated** session. And check the plan gate: **card sorting, tree testing, and Smart
  Recommendations are Team-tier and up** (best-effort), not Solo; moderated + unmoderated testing and AI
  summaries are on all tiers.
- **Set the tester count and mind the per-market multiplier.** ~**5 testers per user group** surfaces most
  major issues (Userfeel's own guidance says 5–6). The catch: "per group" means **per market** — 4 countries
  is **4 × 5 = 20 sessions**, not 5. Say this out loud on any multi-market study; it's where the credits go.

If you discover a gotcha or tip not in `references/learnings.md`, append it there with today's date.

## Gotchas

*Best-effort from research (2026-07) — pricing, the credit model, plan gates, panel size, the recording
cap, and the (absent) API/export surface move; verify at userfeel.com.*

- **Usability ≠ demand.** Userfeel proves a design *works* and shows *why* it confuses testers, not that
  anyone will *buy* — the build-or-not go/no-go belongs to a real behavior test (`/sales-idea-validation`).
- **The pricing you'll find online is stale.** Review sites still say **PAYG ~$30–$180/test, no
  subscription**; the live page sells **annual credit plans from ~$2,250/yr** (Solo/Team/Enterprise, 1 credit
  ≈ 1 unmoderated session, valid 1 year). Confirm at userfeel.com/pricing before budgeting.
- **No API, no webhooks, no Zapier, no MCP.** UI-only; data-out is manual — video download, plain text,
  Excel/CSV, transcript copy. **Capterra ticks an "API" feature box that nothing backs** — no developer
  portal, no documentation. Route pipeline needs to `/sales-userintuition`.
- **"7M+ testers" is largely the User Interviews panel.** Userfeel recruits via the **User Interviews Recruit
  API** (6M+ panel; UI handles vetting/screening/incentives); its first-party panel is cited at 150k–850k.
- **Testers game screeners.** The top complaint is participants misrepresenting **language fluency or job
  title**. Use knowledge-based screeners a faker can't guess, and **report bad sessions** — the
  **Replace-a-Tester guarantee** covers **instruction-following failures**, not just audio/technical faults.
- **Unmoderated recordings hit a hard time cap and cut off.** Scope tight; put long or exploratory work in a
  **moderated** session. **Mobile tests are also slow to fill** — don't promise same-day in a narrow locale.
- **Sharing a video means downloading and re-uploading it** (no clean share link). **Shallow feedback is a
  task-design problem** — fix with goal-based scenarios and **wording that avoids your interface's terms**,
  not by switching tools. **Card sorting / tree testing / Smart Recommendations are Team+**, not Solo.
- **~5 testers is *per market*, not per study.** A 4-country study is ~20 sessions — the reason to pick
  Userfeel and the reason its credit bill grows fast.

## Related skills

- `/sales-uxarmy` — The **regional** counterpart to Userfeel's language-breadth play: a usability + IA suite on an **Asia-Pacific panel of 20+ countries** — route here when the study is specifically APAC rather than multi-language generally. Note UXArmy reportedly does **not support Arabic or Hebrew (RTL)**, so it is not the MENA answer. Install: `npx skills add sales-skills/sales --skill sales-uxarmy -a claude-code`
- `/sales-idea-validation` — The tool-agnostic validate-before-building method + the full research/usability/validator tool landscape (use this to actually decide build-or-not; a passing usability test is not demand). Install: `npx skills add sales-skills/sales --skill sales-idea-validation -a claude-code`
- `/sales-userbrain` — The **narrow, cheap, English-first** think-aloud peer: video-only unmoderated testing with a first-party panel and no IA battery. Route here when you don't need Userfeel's 40+ language coverage and want the simplest per-session option. Install: `npx skills add sales-skills/sales --skill sales-userbrain -a claude-code`
- `/sales-lyssna` — The **larger-panel, genuinely-free-tier** usability/IA peer (690k+ participants, pay-per-use panel on every plan) — the self-serve alternative when Userfeel's annual credit minimum is too big a first commitment, and the broad-battery comparison to make when Userfeel's Team tier is what you'd need for IA tests anyway (see also `/sales-uxtweak`). Install: `npx skills add sales-skills/sales --skill sales-lyssna -a claude-code`
- `/sales-respondent` — The **recruit-only** B2B participant marketplace (with a real Partner REST API) — the pick when you have your own testing tool and only need hard-to-reach participants. Install: `npx skills add sales-skills/sales --skill sales-respondent -a claude-code`
- `/sales-userintuition` — The API/webhook/MCP-native real-human research peer — the pick when you need a programmatic pipeline Userfeel can't offer. Install: `npx skills add sales-skills/sales --skill sales-userintuition -a claude-code`
- `/sales-do` — Not sure which skill to use? The router matches any sales objective to the right skill. Install: `npx skills add sales-skills/sales --skill sales-do -a claude-code`

## Examples

### Example 1: "How much does Userfeel actually cost? Every article says $30 a test"
**User says**: "I read Userfeel is pay-as-you-go at $30/test with no subscription. I want to run 10 tests. Is that $300?"
**Skill does**: Says plainly the **$30/test figure is stale** — still what G2/Capterra/GetApp print, but the
**live page** sells **Solo/Team/Enterprise annual plans from ~$2,250/year** on **credits** (1 credit ≈ 1
unmoderated session, valid a year, panel *or* own participants). Flags figures as best-effort, points to
**userfeel.com/pricing**, adds the multi-market multiplier (~5 testers **per market**), notes card sorting /
tree testing are **Team+**, and suggests `/sales-lyssna` or `/sales-userbrain` if the commitment is too big.
**Result**: The user budgets off the live plan page, not a stale review, and reconsiders the tool fit.

### Example 2: "My German testers clearly aren't fluent — they gamed the screener" (panel quality)
**User says**: "I'm testing our checkout in German. Half the testers barely seem to speak it and the feedback is useless. What do I do?"
**Skill does**: Splits the fix in two. **Recover the credits first**: report each bad session in-platform
under the **Replace-a-Tester guarantee**, which covers participants who **failed to follow instructions** —
replaced free; most users never file. **Then stop it recurring**: replace tick-box screeners with
**knowledge-based, open free-text qualifiers in the target language** a faker can't guess. Notes participants
come via the **User Interviews Recruit API**, so screening rigor is the leverage, and checks whether the
tasks reuse the interface's own words — that lets weak-fluency testers pattern-match instead of read.
**Result**: The user recovers the credits and rewrites screeners so the next batch qualifies honestly.

### Example 3: "How do I get finished Userfeel sessions into our warehouse and Slack automatically?" (developer/automation)
**User says**: "I want each completed session's transcript and SUS score to land in BigQuery and post a summary to Slack."
**Skill does**: States plainly **Userfeel is UI-only — no public API, webhooks, Zapier, or MCP**, and warns
**Capterra's feature grid ticks an "API" box that nothing backs** (no developer portal, no docs) so they
should stop hunting. Lays out the manual options — session **video** download, raw results as **plain text**
or **Excel/CSV**, the timestamped **transcript**, a **highlight video** — flags that sharing a video means
**downloading and re-uploading** it, and notes a warehouse leg means scheduled CSV exports + their own ETL.
If a live pipeline is a hard requirement, routes to `/sales-userintuition` (REST + webhooks + MCP).
**Result**: The user stops looking for an API that doesn't exist and sets up a scheduled CSV export instead.

## Troubleshooting

### "The testers don't match my screener — they lied to qualify"
**Symptom**: Testers claim a language, job title, or seniority they clearly don't have; sessions are worthless.
**Cause**: Self-certifying tick-box screeners are trivially gamed by incentive-motivated participants, and Userfeel recruits via the **User Interviews Recruit API** rather than vetting each tester itself.
**Solution**: First, **report every bad session in-platform** — the **Replace-a-Tester guarantee** covers
participants who "failed to follow your instructions" as well as audio/technical faults, and Userfeel
**replaces them free / refunds the credit**. Then rewrite screeners: **unlimited screener questions** with
**knowledge-based, open free-text** qualifiers in the target language (make them *describe* a workflow, not
confirm they do it). If verifiable audiences are essential, recruit **your own** users (credits work for those
too) or use a dedicated B2B marketplace via `/sales-respondent`.

### "My unmoderated session cut off before the tester finished"
**Symptom**: The recording stops mid-task and the last tasks are never attempted.
**Cause**: Unmoderated sessions have a **strict recording time cap**, and the study was scoped longer than it.
**Solution**: **Cut the study down** — fewer tasks, tighter scenarios, drop pre/post questions that don't earn their minutes; Userfeel's own guidance is tasks with **escalating difficulty**, not an exhaustive tour. Anything long or exploratory belongs in a **moderated** session (all tiers), where you control pacing. Confirm the cap at userfeel.com before designing the study, and report cut-off sessions for a **free replacement**.

### "Why is my credit bill so much higher than I planned?"
**Symptom**: A multi-market study burns far more credits than expected.
**Cause**: Two things compound. **~5 testers is per user group — which means per market**, so a 4-country study is ~20 sessions, not 5. And **1 credit ≈ 1 unmoderated session**, so sessions map ~1:1 onto spend.
**Solution**: Budget as **markets × ~5 testers**, and be honest about whether 2 markets deep beats 4 shallow. Credits are **valid a full year** and work on your **own participants** as well as the panel — self-recruiting a market you already have users in saves the panel spend. Confirm the credit rate and plan minimums at **userfeel.com/pricing** (best-effort); if the annual commitment doesn't fit the volume, compare `/sales-lyssna` (free tier, pay-per-use panel) or `/sales-userbrain` via `/sales-idea-validation`.