"For years, SaaS founders had two bad options for QA: pay an agency $5,000/month or nag their friends to 'just try clicking around.' Both are slow. Both are biased. And neither scales."
The Old Way vs. The AI Way
Traditional agencies rely on manual labor. This means you are paying for every hour a human spends clicking buttons. It also means you wait days or weeks for results.
UserTesting.com and similar platforms give you video of random people using your site. This is great for qualitative feelings ("I don't like this color"), but terrible for technical rigor ("The API throws a 500 error when the cart is empty").
| Method | Cost | Time to Result | Bias Level |
|---|---|---|---|
| DIY / "The Team" | $0 upfront — but high cost in founder time | Weeks (whenever you find time) | High |
| Traditional Agency | $2,000 - $5,000+ | 2-4 Weeks | Medium |
| Feedalyze | $29 - $999 | 48 Hours | Zero |
Why "UserTesting" Isn't Enough
Standard User Testing
- Random users who don't know your niche
- Focuses on "feelings" not functions
- Ignores technical edge cases
- No prioritized developer report
Feedalyze Approach
- AI Personas ( Roasted, skeptical CFO)
- Technical Smoke Tests on critical paths
- Senior QA Engineer manual review
- Jira-ready bug reports
You don't need another generic opinion. You need to know if your signup flow breaks when a user enters a space in their password.
Ready to audit your site?
Get a comprehensive AI + Human audit for a fraction of the agency cost.