Most usability testing tools show what users did. Moderators adds the missing half: an AI moderator talks to your users in chat or voice about what they expected, where they hesitated and what they would change, then returns findings with quotes. Use it next to your analytics, or on its own when the question is why.
What actually changed before you cancelled?
It got expensive.
Expensive compared to what?
Our team shrank from nine people to four.
Quote from the interview
“Setup took two days and nobody had time.”
Recordings and click maps tell you a user paused on the billing screen. They do not tell you whether the user was reading terms, doubting the price or looking for a button that lives somewhere else. Only the user knows, and the answer takes one well placed question. That question is what an interviewer asks and a dashboard cannot.
Observation tools suit questions about behaviour: where, how long, how often. Interview tools suit questions about meaning: why, what for, compared with what. Moderators belongs to the second group. A sensible setup uses both, and the interview results tell you which behaviour is worth looking at. For more on the style of testing, see moderated usability testing.
Write the task in the guide, for example "set up your first project and invite a colleague". Users try it in your product, then open the Moderators link. The AI asks what they tried, what went smoothly, where they stopped and what they expected instead. It keeps asking until the answer is specific.
A ranked list of friction points, each with the quotes that show it. Because quotes come straight from transcripts, designers can see the exact words users chose, which tends to be more convincing in a design review than a summary sentence. Detail on outputs is in features, and the research team view is in UX research tools.
No screen capture, no heatmaps, no click tracking. Moderators is a conversation tool. Teams that need those signals use a separate recorder and bring the question it raises here.
Qualitative usability work usually repeats the same few problems quickly, so a small group answers many questions. The advantage here is that scale is cheap, so you can talk to many more users than a calendar would allow when the budget calls for it and compare segments, such as new users against long-term ones.
Yours. You invite them with a link, and Moderators does not supply testers. That keeps the findings tied to the people who use your product.
Annual billing is the default and takes half off. No free plan is offered, and an exhausted limit does not come back in the same period.
A 40 session round on Team uses a tenth of the chat limit. See all plans on the pricing page.
Describe the task, send the link and read what users say when you ask them directly.