Maze vs Useberry vs Lyssna: which handles multiple success paths, flows, branching and segments?
Table of Contents
Checked 4 October 2026 against each vendor’s own help documentation. Features change often, so each claim below links to the page it came from.
A recent r/UXResearch thread asked for a prototype testing tool that does four things at once: accepts more than one success path for a task, shows a visual flow of where people went, supports logic branching, and lets you group or segment the results. One reply summed up the frustration: there’s a real gap in the market. We read the help centres of three of the most-used tools, Maze, Useberry and Lyssna (formerly UsabilityHub), to see how close each gets.
Short answer: Maze is the only one of the three that documents several expected success paths per task, and it pairs them with a Sankey-style path diagram. Useberry has the most flexible flow diagram and logic jumps. Lyssna is goal-screen only, with simpler show/hide logic, but good result filters. None of them does everything perfectly.
| Ask | Maze | Useberry | Lyssna |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multiple success paths | Yes: add as many expected paths as you need; direct and indirect success reported | Partly: complete on a specific path or a specific screen; logic branches on which completion was reached; direct and indirect success reported | No: one goal screen per task flow; any route that reaches it counts |
| Visual flow of paths | Sankey-style diagram plus a list of paths with counts, time and misclicks | User Flows diagram with screen images, step limits and an “Other” bucket | Common and individual paths listed with time and clicks per screen; no diagram documented |
| Logic branching | Conditions route on mission outcome (failed, direct, indirect, a specific path, misclicked) or answers; paid plans only | Logic jumps on almost every block; tasks can branch on completed, skipped, direct or indirect, time and clicks outside hotspots | Show/hide logic, one condition per question or section; can depend on whether the prototype task was completed |
| Grouping and segmenting | Filters by participant metadata or by a block’s answer or outcome, combined with AND; not saveable | Filters and segments inside User Flows; compare flows by audience and device | Filters by demographics and by answers, combinable; view one participant at a time |
Multiple success paths
This is the ask that separates the three most clearly. Maze’s guide to setting success criteria in goal-based prototype tests says that if a mission “has more than one valid way to be completed, you can add as many expected paths as you need.” A path is a sequence of screens, so the hotspot a tester used to move between two screens does not matter. Testers who follow any expected path are a direct success; those who reach the end screen another way are an indirect success.
Useberry’s Single Task block completes on either a “specific path” or a “specific screen”, and reports direct success (the path you set) against indirect success (any other route to the goal). Its logic jumps can branch on which completion a tester reached, chosen from a list. The help centre does not state how many paths a single task can hold, so if you need three or more, confirm it in a trial.
Lyssna’s prototype task sections ask you to choose a goal screen: “the screen that participants need to reach to complete the task.” There is no expected path to define, so every route to the goal is simply a success. That is fine for “can people get there at all”, and weaker for “did they take one of the routes we designed”.
A visual flow of where people went
All three record paths; they differ in how they draw them. Maze’s prototype test results show paths as a list, grouped by outcome with the number of participants, average time and misclick rate, and as “a Sankey-style diagram” of the paths participants actually took. Heatmaps sit on each screen.
Useberry’s User Flows view is the most configurable. Each step is paired with the screen image, you can exclude items, choose how many steps to display, and group any flow below a 1–5% threshold into “Other”. It is available for Single Task and Open Analytics blocks, and it supports Figma interactive components.
Lyssna lets you “view and compare common paths, or dig into the individual paths that each participant took”, with the time on each screen and click counts, plus click maps and heat maps. Its help article does not describe a flow diagram.
Logic branching
Maze’s conditional logic can route a tester on a mission outcome, including “Succeeded directly”, “Succeeded indirectly”, “Took a specific path” and “Misclicked”, or on an answer to almost any question block. Conditions are “exclusive to paid plans”.
Useberry’s logic jumps cover nearly every block type and allow several jumps per block. On a task you can branch on completed or skipped, direct or indirect completion, time spent and the number of clicks outside hotspots, which is the most granular of the three.
Lyssna’s test logic is deliberately simpler. It hides or shows questions and sections rather than jumping, “each question or section supports only one logic condition at a time”, and one of the supported conditions is whether a participant completed the prototype task. That covers the common case, a follow-up question for people who failed, but not multi-condition branching.
Grouping and segmenting results
Maze lets you filter your results by participant metadata (device, browser, language, duration, completion) or by a block’s answer or outcome, and combine filters with AND. OR is not supported, and filters cannot be saved: refreshing the page clears them.
Useberry applies filters and segments inside the User Flows view itself, and its User Flows page describes comparing flows by audience and device, which is the closest match to “show me how this group navigated differently”.
Lyssna’s results filters work on demographics, survey and question answers, and recruitment order or link, and can be combined to look at a specific segment.
Which one to pick
- You need several valid routes graded separately: Maze, because it is the only one of the three that documents multiple expected paths and can branch on “took a specific path”.
- You mostly want to see how people really moved: Useberry, for the most configurable flow diagram and the finest-grained logic jumps.
- You run mixed studies with surveys and simple tasks: Lyssna is the easiest to set up, as long as one goal screen per task is enough.
Whichever you choose, write the task so it has a clear end state, decide in advance which routes count as success, and pilot it with two or three people before you pay for a panel. If the thing you are testing is navigation, our guides to hamburger menu placement, what a mobile menu is called and formative vs summative usability testing are a good place to start. To check a live site rather than a prototype, run our free UX audit, and browse more research and testing software in our tools directory.
Frequently asked questions
Which prototype testing tool supports multiple success paths?
Maze documents it directly: if a mission has more than one valid way to be completed, you can add as many expected paths as you need, and results split direct from indirect success. Useberry lets a task complete on a specific path or screen and branches on which completion a tester reached. Lyssna's task flow uses a single goal screen, so any route to that screen counts as success.
Which tool shows a visual flow diagram of how testers moved through a prototype?
Maze shows a Sankey-style diagram of the paths participants took, alongside a list of paths. Useberry's User Flows view maps every step with the screen image attached, lets you hide items, set the number of steps shown and bucket small flows into Other. Lyssna lists common and individual paths with time and clicks per screen rather than a diagram.
Can I branch a prototype test based on whether someone succeeded?
Yes in all three, with different depth. Maze conditions route on mission outcome, including direct, indirect or a specific path, and on answers (paid plans only). Useberry logic jumps route on task completed or skipped, direct or indirect completion, time and clicks outside hotspots. Lyssna uses show/hide logic with one condition per question or section, which can depend on whether the prototype task was completed.
