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:
- 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
- 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.
- 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 : report the session in-platform for a . It covers participants who , not just audio/technical
faults — most users eat bad sessions instead of reporting them.
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.
