Suzy alternatives: What does your research team need to replace?
Replacing a research platform means moving more than a questionnaire. Check that your audience, recurring study and reporting routine will survive the change.
Choose a Suzy alternative by identifying the research workflow you need to replace. A team running weekly human concept studies needs audience access, repeatable questions and usable records. A team seeking an occasional design comparison or an early simulated screen may need a narrower piece of work.
Vela, an illustrative snack brand, uses a recurring study to compare two proposed offers for recent category buyers in the United States. The team wants to add a second market while retaining its weekly U.S. workflow. It needs to decide whether to replace its platform, buy additional research alongside it, or change how the existing work is commissioned.
The following routes are grouped by the work they could take on. The selection test is Vela's actual brief and migration needs.
First establish what your Suzy agreement already covers
Suzy's current Insights product describes a workspace for storing and exploring information around a business objective, including uploaded documents and datasets. Its quality-assurance material describes human respondent checks, including identity and mobile verification. Those are relevant parts of a replacement review alongside the survey interface. Source: Suzy Insights. Source: Suzy's audience-quality documentation.
Suzy also describes qualitative work through Suzy Speaks and Suzy Live, including AI-moderated interviews, focus groups and in-depth interviews. Establish which products, audiences and support are included in your current contract and in a new proposal. A public product description does not specify your team's entitlement. Source: Suzy's account of its research tools.
For Vela, the first document is a record of the last completed study. Save the audience definition, recruitment source, screener, concept cards, question wording, routing, exposure order, exclusions, valid bases and report. List the work the team performed itself and the work Suzy or another supplier performed.
That record may reveal that the missing capability is access to the second market, rather than a defect in the weekly U.S. process. The proposed replacement should answer that specific gap.
Match the alternative to the recurring job
Research job | Route to examine and evidence to request |
|---|---|
Connected surveys and interviews with consumers | Attest. Its platform combines quantitative research through Measure with AI-moderated consumer interviews through Explore. Its help documentation describes duplicating a survey for another wave. Ask it to reproduce Vela's screening, exposure and report, and to quote the required market and eligible audience. Source: Attest platform. Source: Survey reuse documentation. |
A focused comparison of proposed designs, text or video | PickFu. It offers survey formats for testing stimuli with targeted real respondents and returns votes and written feedback. Give it the complete study, including how concepts must be exposed and which audience must answer. Check that the quoted setup supports that design and any required follow-up. Source: How PickFu works. |
A survey workflow using automated research methods | quantilope. Its platform lists methods including conjoint and MaxDiff, along with quantitative research and tracking. It also describes access through a consumer panel network. Ask which methods, audience access, analysis and researcher assistance are included in the proposed arrangement. Source: quantilope's platform and methods. |
Managed exploration of proposed offers with a simulated audience | Sapien. We build data-grounded simulated populations and run surveys, interviews and comparisons, returning findings and recommendations. Vela could use this route to explore an additional offer or audience hypothesis before commissioning human research. Agree which observed evidence is still needed for the decision. Source: How Sapien works. |
These choices can sit alongside an existing workflow. Vela may retain a human study for its recurring series while using a focused poll to revise artwork or a modeled comparison to narrow a larger set of ideas. Keep each output's audience, method and purpose visible in the report.
Our concept-testing brief helps specify the offers and decision that every supplier should receive. A demonstration using a vendor's easy-to-reach audience cannot establish that it can deliver Vela's required buyers in the second market.
Replay one study before migrating the program
Give shortlisted suppliers the same completed brief, with the previous findings withheld from those designing or interpreting a fresh test where practical. Ask them to show the participant's survey journey as well as the final dashboard. Check an eligible buyer, an ineligible buyer, a skipped answer and a response that selects no purchase.
For Vela, the pilot must preserve the actual pack size, price, buying occasion and available alternatives. The screener must use the same category and recall period. A shorter survey that removes the no-purchase option would change the question the brand is asking.
Separate implementation acceptance from outcome agreement. The supplier should be able to reproduce the required logic, records and denominators. A fresh human sample can still return a different result. Record differences in sampling, audience composition and field dates before interpreting a change as a new consumer preference.
When a proposed replacement changes the response source to simulation, define acceptance for the intended use explicitly. Our synthetic research validation guide explains how to set a relevant comparison and decision rule. A modeled study should have its own series and label when Vela's existing tracker contains human responses.
Use this migration checklist with the supplier
Migration requirement | What the team should receive before cutover |
|---|---|
Study specification | A saved questionnaire with exact wording, answer codes, routing, randomization and exposure rules, plus the versioned concept files |
Audience continuity | A written definition of eligible buyers in each market, recruitment sources, quotas and how repeat participation will be handled |
History and permissions | An inventory of the records you may export and reuse, including any restrictions on participant data, video or supplier-provided material |
Trial import | One completed study reconstructed in the proposed system. Check question labels, text answers, missing values and all required cuts against the original |
Fresh-study rehearsal | The agreed new fieldwork or modeled pilot, with source, bases, exclusions and differences from the old method documented |
Reporting routine | The tables or dashboard views the decision meeting actually uses, including access and an export the team can inspect independently |
Team ownership | Named responsibility for programming, audience checks, fieldwork monitoring, coding, analysis and the final recommendation |
Exit and continuity | Confirmation that required study records remain available under the agreed terms, and a cutover date that preserves work already in progress |
For a continuing series, agree how the change will be marked and whether overlapping fieldwork is necessary. One matching result would not settle comparability across every future wave. The useful rehearsal exposes where the team needs a bridge, a new baseline or a separate study.
Compare the work left on your team's desk
Request a quote for the whole pilot and the expected recurring program. Include the platform commitment, audience and fieldwork, specialist methods, research support, translation where required, reporting, migration and internal staff time. Ask what changes if the audience is harder to recruit or a study needs another iteration.
Keep cash obligations and staff hours in separate columns in the buying worksheet. An internal hour is a real capacity cost, but it is not automatically cash saved by cancelling a license. Confirm what the team would stop paying and which work would genuinely move to the new arrangement.
Keeping Suzy is a reasonable outcome if the current setup reaches the required buyers, preserves usable study records and delivers work the team can act on. An additional market or method may be better scoped as a separate commission. Switch when the alternative resolves a documented requirement and the pilot shows how the recurring work will continue, with owners and costs the team accepts.
