---
name: sales-userlytics
description: "Userlytics (userlytics.com) platform help — an enterprise/mid-market usability-testing platform running moderated, unmoderated, and quantitative studies (prototype tests, card sorting, tree testing, think-aloud) on a 2M+ global panel across 150+ countries and 60+ languages, plus bring-your-own-users (BYOU), AI insights/sentiment, ULX benchmarking, SUS scoring, and an optional white-label. UI-only — no documented public API, webhooks, Zapier, or MCP; data-out is manual video/transcript/CSV export. Use when picking a full-service moderated+unmoderated tool, recruiting testers in a language or country you don't speak, splitting credits between panel and your own users, working around the clunky researcher UI or missing word-cloud/heatmap analysis, buggy AI insights that freeze, or the subscription vs per-session vs project pricing. Do NOT use for choosing across usability tools or the validate-before-building method (use /sales-idea-validation), or an API/webhook-native pipeline (use /sales-userintuition)."
argument-hint: "[describe what you need help with in Userlytics]"
license: MIT
version: 1.0.0
tags: [sales, pre-launch, platform]
---

# Userlytics Platform Help

Userlytics (userlytics.com) is the **enterprise/mid-market full-service** entry in the usability cluster:
**moderated + unmoderated + quantitative** studies (prototype tests, card sorting, tree testing,
think-aloud, content) on a **2M+ global panel** (150+ countries, 60+ languages) *or* your own users
(**BYOU**), with **AI insights/sentiment**, the **ULX® Benchmarking Score**, **SUS**, Amazon-Transcribe
transcripts, and an optional **white-label**. Where UXtweak/Lyssna are self-serve unmoderated-first and
Userbrain is cheap think-aloud video, Userlytics is the pick when you want **moderated sessions, a big
global panel, and a managed/consulting option** in one place. Three things to say almost every time (all
Step 4 imperatives): a clean session is **not demand**; it's effectively **UI-only** (no documented public
API/webhooks/Zapier/MCP); and its **pricing has four+ shapes** — quote the one that fits their volume.

## 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 Userlytics?** (A) **Set up a study** (test type, device/prototype) · (B)
   **Recruit** (2M+ panel + screeners vs your own users/BYOU; a country/language) · (C) **Read results**
   (AI insights/sentiment, ULX/SUS, transcripts, reels) · (D) **Fix problems** (clunky UI, missing
   text-viz, AI insights freezing, credits stuck between panel and BYOU) · (E) **Get data out**
   (video/transcript/CSV, no API) · (F) **Pricing** (subscription vs per-session Enterprise vs Project vs
   Limitless) · (G) **Choose** — Userlytics vs UserTesting / Lyssna / UXtweak / Userbrain / Userfeel
2. **Are your users in a language/country your team doesn't cover?** Global reach and **moderated** sessions
   are Userlytics's edge — if you only need US-English unmoderated, a cheaper self-serve peer fits; say so.
3. **Already built/designed it, or still deciding whether to build?** The second is an idea-validation
   question, not a usability one — flag it in Step 2.

Skip-ahead: if the prompt already names the task and the 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 (Userlytics 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 Userlytics-specific questions using Step 3.

## Step 3 — Userlytics platform reference

**Read `references/platform-guide.md`** for the full reference — the capability/automation-surface table,
the four pricing shapes and plan gates, the split panel-vs-BYOU credit model, the Study → Task →
Participant → Session data model, and the no-API data-out playbook. Userlytics has **no documented public
API**, so there is no API-reference file. Answer using only the relevant section — don't dump it all.

## Step 4 — Actionable guidance

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

- **Quote the right pricing shape for their volume, and flag all figures as best-effort.** Userlytics
  sells the same product **four+ ways**: a **Self-Recruitment subscription** for unlimited BYOU (**Premium
  ~$699/mo**, 5 seats, ~50 AI transcriptions/mo; **Advanced ~$999/mo**, 10 seats, unlimited), **Enterprise**
  billed **per session** ("as low as ~$30/session", unlimited seats, account manager on ~$12k+, BOGO BYOU
  credits), a one-off **Project-Based** plan (**min 5 sessions**, no subscription), and **Limitless**
  (custom). Match it to how they buy: **own users at volume → subscription; panel sessions → Enterprise
  per-session; a single study → Project**. Enterprise/Project/Limitless are **contact-sales** — point to
  **userlytics.com/pricing** and mark every figure best-effort.
- **Explain the split-credit model before they buy — it's the #1 billing surprise.** Credits split between
  **Userlytics panel testers** and **your own participants (BYOU)** and **don't freely pool**, so studies
  end with **unused credits** stranded on one side. Tell them to decide the panel-vs-BYOU mix *before*
  purchasing, lean on **BYOU** where they already have users (the subscription is built for it; Enterprise
  markets **buy-one-get-one BYOU credits**), and confirm credit expiry/rollover at purchase.
- **Flag it as UI-only whenever automation or export comes up.** Userlytics has **no documented public
  API, webhooks, Zapier, or MCP** — no developer portal (`developer.`/`docs.userlytics.com` don't
  resolve), and `api.userlytics.com` is the app's own backend, **not** a public API. If they saw an
  aggregator claim "API for custom integrations," it's an **undocumented enterprise** claim, not something
  to build against — **don't invent endpoints**. Data-out is **manual**: session **video**, **transcripts**
  (Amazon-Transcribe), raw results as **CSV**, **highlight reels / links**; a warehouse leg means scheduled
  CSV exports + their own ETL (**batch, not real-time**). If a live pipeline is a hard requirement, route
  to `/sales-userintuition`.
- **Set expectations on the researcher UI and analysis limits before they design the study.** Reviewers
  call the platform **dated and cumbersome** (confusing test-plan navigation, high learning curve), and —
  the concrete gap — it has **no open-ended-text visualizations** (no **word clouds** / aggregate
  **heatmaps**), so synthesis is manual. Tell them to **budget setup time**, lean on **templates**, and
  synthesize by hand or by exporting transcripts/CSV. Also **card sorting isn't mobile-optimized** — run
  IA studies on desktop.
- **Treat AI insights/sentiment as a draft, and expect glitches.** The **AI insights** feature is reported
  to **freeze or glitch mid-generation** — tell them to **re-run** on failure, **verify every AI claim
  against the video/transcript**, and never ship an AI summary unchecked. Treat **ULX** and **SUS** as
  *relative* signals across iterations, not absolute truths.
- **When the study is multilingual/global, that's the reason to pick Userlytics — scope for it.** Its panel
  spans **150+ countries / 60+ languages** with **moderated** sessions (a real edge over the self-serve-only
  peers). Budget **~5 testers *per market*** (a 4-country study is ~20 sessions, not 5), write screeners
  **in the target language**, and use **moderated** sessions to probe *why* in a language your team speaks.
- **Anchor the go/no-go on real behavior, not the usability result.** A clean session — high task success,
  a good ULX/SUS score — proves the design **works** and shows *why* users struggle; it is **not** demand.
  Keep the usability findings and take the build-or-not decision to a real behavior test (smoke-test page,
  pre-sale) via `/sales-idea-validation`.

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 three plan shapes, the split-credit model, panel size,
the (absent) API/export surface, and AI-feature reliability move; verify at userlytics.com.*

- **Usability ≠ demand.** Userlytics 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`).
- **No documented public API, webhooks, Zapier, or MCP.** Effectively UI-only; data-out is manual (video,
  transcript, CSV, reel). `api.userlytics.com` is an **internal app backend**, not a public API, and
  there's **no developer portal**. Route pipeline needs to `/sales-userintuition`.
- **Pricing has four+ shapes and only one fits.** BYOU **subscription** (Premium ~$699/mo / Advanced
  ~$999/mo) vs **Enterprise per-session** (~$30, panel) vs one-off **Project** (min 5 sessions) vs
  **Limitless** — Enterprise/Project/Limitless are contact-sales. Confirm at userlytics.com/pricing.
- **Credits split between panel and BYOU and don't pool** → studies end with **stranded unused credits**.
  Decide the mix before purchasing; Enterprise markets **BOGO BYOU credits**.
- **Researcher UI is dated; analysis viz is thin** (**no word clouds / aggregate heatmaps** for open text —
  synthesis is manual). **AI insights can freeze/glitch** — re-run and **verify every claim against the
  video/transcript**; treat ULX/SUS as *relative* signals. **Card sorting isn't mobile-optimized** — run
  IA studies on desktop.
- **~5 testers is *per market*, not per study.** A 4-country study is ~20 sessions/credits — the reason to
  pick Userlytics's global panel and where the credit bill grows.

## Related skills

- `/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-userfeel` — The **multilingual/international** peer whose whole reason to exist is 40+ languages / 40+ countries — the head-to-head comparison when the study is language-driven and you don't need Userlytics's moderated depth or consulting. Install: `npx skills add sales-skills/sales --skill sales-userfeel -a claude-code`
- `/sales-lyssna` — The **larger-free-tier, self-serve** usability/IA peer (690k+ panel, genuinely usable free plan) — the pick when Userlytics's enterprise setup and contact-sales pricing are too heavy for a quick unmoderated study. Install: `npx skills add sales-skills/sales --skill sales-lyssna -a claude-code`
- `/sales-uxtweak` — The broad self-serve **card-sort / tree-test / IA** battery in one seat — route here for information-architecture studies where Userlytics's mobile card sort falls short. Install: `npx skills add sales-skills/sales --skill sales-uxtweak -a claude-code`
- `/sales-userbrain` — The **narrow, cheap** think-aloud video peer with a first-party panel — the simplest per-session option when you just want to watch people use it and don't need moderation or a global panel. Install: `npx skills add sales-skills/sales --skill sales-userbrain -a claude-code`
- `/sales-userintuition` — The API/webhook/MCP-native real-human research peer — the pick when you need a programmatic pipeline Userlytics 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: "Which pricing plan should I be on — I keep seeing $30 a session but also $699 a month?"
**User says**: "I want to run usability tests with my own users mostly, plus a few from your panel. Is Userlytics $30/session or $699/month?"
**Skill does**: Explains the **three shapes** and matches one to their buy pattern: mostly **own users at
volume → the Self-Recruitment subscription** (Premium ~$699/mo for unlimited BYOU testing); **panel
sessions → Enterprise per-session** (~$30/session, contact-sales); **a one-off study → Project-Based** (min
5 sessions). Warns the **panel and BYOU credits split and don't pool** (so scope the mix first), flags
Enterprise/Project as **contact-sales**, points to **userlytics.com/pricing**, and marks every number
best-effort.
**Result**: The user picks the subscription for BYOU + a small Enterprise/Project top-up for panel sessions, instead of overpaying on the wrong plan.

### Example 2: "The researcher dashboard is a maze and I can't get a word cloud of the open-ended answers" (platform pain)
**User says**: "Setting up a study takes forever and there's no way to visualize the themes across 20 sessions. Am I missing something?"
**Skill does**: Confirms it's **not them** — reviewers widely flag the **dated, cumbersome researcher UI**
with confusing test-plan navigation, and Userlytics has **no word-cloud / aggregate-heatmap text
analysis**. Advises **budgeting setup time + using templates**, doing thematic synthesis manually (or
exporting **transcripts/CSV** to analyze elsewhere), and — if AI summaries are freezing — **re-running and
verifying each AI claim against the transcript**. Notes card sorting isn't mobile-optimized. If
cross-session synthesis is the core need, suggests comparing peers via `/sales-idea-validation`.
**Result**: The user stops hunting for a viz feature that doesn't exist and sets up an export-and-analyze workflow.

### Example 3: "How do I get finished Userlytics sessions and SUS scores into BigQuery and Slack automatically?" (developer/automation)
**User says**: "I want each completed session's transcript and SUS score to land in our warehouse and post a summary to Slack."
**Skill does**: States plainly Userlytics is **effectively UI-only — no documented public API, webhooks,
Zapier, or MCP**, that `api.userlytics.com` is the **app's own backend (not a public API)** and there's
**no developer portal**, so any aggregator "API" claim is undocumented-enterprise and not buildable — **don't
invent endpoints**. Lays out the manual path: download session **video**, export **transcripts** and raw
results as **CSV**, share **highlight reels**; a warehouse leg = scheduled CSV exports + their own ETL, and
Slack = a script on that export. If a live pipeline is a hard requirement, routes to `/sales-userintuition`
(REST + webhooks + MCP).
**Result**: The user stops looking for an API that isn't documented and sets up a scheduled CSV export instead.

## Troubleshooting

### "I ran a study and got stuck with unused credits I can't spend"
**Symptom**: Credits remain after a study but can't be applied to the next one.
**Cause**: Userlytics **splits credits between panel testers and your own participants (BYOU)**, and the two
buckets **don't freely pool** — so a study weighted to one side strands credits on the other.
**Solution**: Decide the **panel-vs-BYOU mix before purchasing**, and lean on **BYOU** wherever you already
have users (the Self-Recruitment subscription is built for unlimited BYOU, and Enterprise markets
**buy-one-get-one BYOU credits**). Confirm **credit expiry/rollover** at purchase, and ask sales whether
leftover credits can be reallocated before you commit.

### "The AI insights keep freezing / the summary is clearly wrong"
**Symptom**: The AI insight/sentiment generation glitches, freezes, or produces an off-base summary.
**Cause**: The AI insights feature is reported to **freeze or glitch mid-generation**, and (like any LLM
summary) it can misread the session.
**Solution**: **Re-run** the generation on failure, and **verify every AI claim against the actual video and
transcript** before using it — never ship an AI summary unchecked. Treat the **ULX Benchmarking Score** and
**SUS** as *relative* signals across iterations, not absolute truths. For deep thematic work, export the
**transcript/CSV** and synthesize manually.

### "My global testers don't match — and the study cost way more than I expected"
**Symptom**: Testers in a target market misqualify, and a multi-market study burns far more sessions than planned.
**Cause**: Two things compound. Screeners were **self-certifying** (easy to game on language/role), and
**~5 testers is *per market/user group*** — so a 4-country study is **~20 sessions**, not 5.
**Solution**: Write **knowledge-based screeners in the target language** (make testers *describe* a workflow,
not tick a box), prefer **moderated** sessions where you need to probe *why* in a language your team speaks,
and budget as **markets × ~5 testers**. Where you already have users in a market, **BYOU** avoids the panel
spend entirely. Confirm panel reach and credit rates at **userlytics.com** (best-effort).