For developers
Watch real people use your app before you launch.
Not analytics telling you where people dropped off. The recording of the moment they did, with the person saying out loud what confused them.
- sessions recorded
- verified testers
- campaigns run
- min
- average session
The category
What a crowdtesting platform actually does.
Crowdtesting means paying real people to use your software and tell you what happened. The platform recruits the pool, vets it, matches people to your job and handles the payouts. Where platforms differ is in who those people are and what lands back in your inbox.
Three things get confused with it often enough to be worth separating out. Picking the wrong one costs you two weeks.
Not automated testing
Appium, Detox and Maestro run scripts you wrote against flows you already thought of. Crowdtesting finds the flows you did not think of. Most teams end up wanting both, for different questions.
Not a beta programme
TestFlight and Play closed tracks distribute a build. They do not find people, brief them, or make anyone report back. Crowdtesting is the part that turns distribution into feedback.
Not a usability lab
A moderated study is a researcher on a call with one participant, asking follow-up questions. Crowdtesting is unmoderated and runs in parallel: far cheaper per session, and nobody can ask the follow-up.
Launching a campaign
Three steps, and none of them is integration.
01
Post your build
A TestFlight link, an APK, or a web URL. Write the scenario you want walked, set how many testers you want. Five minutes from idea to live campaign.
02
Hand-pick your testers
Applicants come to you with device, country and reputation attached. You choose who tests, every time. No panel is assigned to you.
03
Get scored results
Six UX dimensions, ranked by severity. You get a prioritised list of what to fix, not a folder of raw video to sit through.
Why it works
The part nobody has time for, done for you.
Humans, not scripts
Verified people using your app on their own phone, the way a user would. No emulators, no automation, no synthetic traffic.
Live in ten minutes
No SDK, no build flag, no dashboard to configure. If you have a link you already have everything you need.
The analysis is done for you
Every session is scored on task completion, navigation depth, duration, narration clarity, attention and report specificity before it reaches you.
You only pay for finished work
A session that is never completed is never charged. There is no seat, no monthly floor and no annual contract.
What the score is made of
Six dimensions, not a thumbs up.
A session scoring badly is not a rejected tester, it is a signal that the feedback will not help you. Those get filtered before they reach your dashboard, and you are not charged for them.
Average score across 1,502 sessions on the platform: 72.
- Task completion
- Navigation depth
- Session duration
- Narration clarity
- Attention zones
- Report specificity
Choosing between platforms
Five questions that separate one from another.
Every platform in this category says it gives you real testers on real devices, so that sentence decides nothing. These are the axes where they genuinely diverge, and where TestFi sits on each.
Who picks the testers
Most platforms match you algorithmically or hand you a managed pool. Testlio and uTest run it that way and it is the right model at enterprise scale, where nobody wants to read applications. TestFi hands you the applicants with device, country and past reviews attached, and you choose.
What comes back
Bug reports, written surveys, or screen recordings with the person talking. The gap is wider than it sounds. A bug report tells you something broke. A recording tells you why someone gave up before they hit the bug.
How you pay
Annual contracts and per-cycle quotes buy managed service, account management and someone to escalate to. UserTesting and Testlio sell that, and for a team running continuous research it is worth the money. Per completed session buys the sessions and nothing else. TestFi is $3.99 written and $5.99 recorded, with no seat and no floor.
Where the pool comes from
Vetted communities check people before they reach you. Open signup scales faster and lets more noise through. Ours is vetted, which is slower to grow and the reason a campaign fills in hours rather than minutes.
Whether anything is checked before you read it
On most platforms every submission arrives and you sort it. Ours are scored on six dimensions first, and low-effort work is rejected before it reaches you and before you are charged for it.
If you want the same comparison drawn against one competitor at a time, there are seven of them written up here.
When to use something else
Four jobs this is the wrong tool for.
Saying this costs us a few signups. It also stops someone spending two weeks finding out we were the wrong choice. If you are here for one of these, something else will serve you better.
You need regression coverage
If the question is whether this build broke what worked last week, write automated tests. People are expensive and inconsistent at repeating the same checks, and they should not be asked to.
You need security testing
Different discipline, different crowd. Bugcrowd and HackerOne run bounty programmes with researchers who do this properly. We do not, and you should not use us as a substitute.
You need statistical significance
Ten sessions surface usability problems reliably. They will not tell you which of two headlines converts better. That question needs an A/B test with thousands of users, not ten with recordings.
There is no build yet
A tester needs something installable: a TestFlight link, an APK, or a URL. If what you have is a Figma prototype, use a prototype tool. Maze is built for that and we are not.
Two testers is usually enough to find it.
That is $7.98, and results the same day.