Comparison · Lens vs Maze

Lens vs Maze

Maze and Lens overlap, but they aren't the same kind of product. Maze is a dedicated unmoderated testing tool. Lens is a research repository that has testing built into it. That difference decides which one fits.

So this page starts with where Maze is stronger. If those things matter most to you, the rest won't change your mind — and you should know that before reading further.

Where Maze is stronger

Deeper Figma prototype interactivity

Maze is known for how thoroughly it handles Figma prototypes, including screen-level tracking of how someone moved through them. Lens embeds a Figma prototype and measures the outcome, the time and the participant's own words — but not their click path, because Figma only reports prototype interactions to viewers signed in to Figma. If screen-by-screen data on a Figma file is the thing you need, that is a real reason to choose Maze.

Participant recruitment

Maze can put your test in front of people for you. Lens has no panel: you share the link with participants you already have, or recruit them elsewhere. For a team without access to users, that difference matters more than any feature list.

A larger company behind it

Maze is an established, funded product with a bigger team and a longer track record. Lens is built by one person. We answer that with terms rather than reassurance — three months' notice if the service is ever discontinued, a perpetual self-hosted licence, and full export at any time — but it is a fair thing to weigh.

Where Lens is different

The results don't live in a separate tool

This is the whole difference. Maze is a testing platform; the findings come out as reports you then move somewhere else. In Lens a test result is a first-class record in your research repository: a heatmap sits beside the interview that prompted the question, a striking outcome becomes an evidence-linked insight in one click, and that insight moves through triage toward the roadmap. Nothing is exported to be pasted into a deck.

Responses are never metered

Dedicated testing tools generally price by how much you test — responses, studies, or seats to view them. In Lens, tests, participants and responses are never metered on any plan. How many people you put a design in front of stays a research decision rather than a billing one.

Stakeholders read for free

Contributors take a paid seat; viewers are unlimited and free. The people who need to act on a test result — product owners, engineers, leadership — never need a licence to read it, which is usually where adoption of testing actually stalls.

Testing a real build, not only a prototype

Add one line of script to a deployed app — a Figma Make, Lovable or v0 build, a staging environment, your live product — and Lens records clicks, screen paths and automatic success detection when someone reaches the page that means done. No rebuilding your app inside a testing tool.

EU hosting, self-hosting, and your own AI key

The cloud edition runs in the EU, with consent tracking, anonymization, export and erasure built in. Or run the Docker edition on your own infrastructure, where research data never leaves your network. AI features are optional and use a key you provide — Claude, ChatGPT, Grok or Gemini — so nothing is sent to a provider you didn't choose.

Choose Lens if…

You want test results to live with your interviews and insights, not in a second tool
You test often enough that per-response pricing changes what you're willing to run
Stakeholders need to read findings without taking a paid seat
You're testing a real build — Figma Make, Lovable, v0, staging or production — not only a prototype
EU data residency, self-hosting, or GDPR tooling is part of the decision

Choose Maze if…

Screen-by-screen click paths through a Figma prototype are the core of what you need
You need participants recruited for you
You want a dedicated testing tool and already have a repository you're happy with

Using both

It's a legitimate setup: Maze for prototype testing, Lens as the repository everything lands in. Export from Maze, create the insight in Lens, and the evidence still connects to your interviews. The reason teams eventually stop doing that is the copying — not the tools.

Maze is a trademark of its owner and is not affiliated with Lens. Product capabilities and pricing change often — check Maze's website for the latest details. This page describes Lens's own approach.

See how Lens compares on your own research

Request access