Detect what changed. Explain the impact. Know what mattered.
UXsniff detects UX changes, compares before vs after behavior, and surfaces the few insights worth your attention. Heatmaps and recordings support the evidence - without you watching everything.
As seen in
When metrics drop, “why” is slow
Dashboards tell you what happened. They rarely tell you what changed in the experience.
UXsniff is about change → impact
Detect changes, compare behavior, and prioritize what to fix. Data becomes decisions.
Backed by heatmaps + recordings
You still get the raw truth. You just don’t have to swim in it.
Workflow comparison
1) Traditional A/B Testing
- Plan variants in advance
- Split traffic and wait for confidence
- Works best for deliberate experiments
- Only tests what you predicted
- Use UXsniff when changes ship without a test
- Reduce time spent guessing when metrics move
- Know what changed before debating why
- Focus on what mattered, not what’s loudest
2) Retro A/B (Time-Travel A/B)
- If no test was set up, you’re stuck
- Dig through dashboards and replays
- Debate what caused the change
- Slow root-cause loop
- Compare behavior before vs after a change
- No experiment setup
- No traffic split required
- Use real historical user data
3) Change Radar
- Changes go unnoticed until KPIs drop
- Rely on release notes or memory
- Find regressions late, under pressure
- Manual investigation
- Continuously detects UX changes
- Flags changes that line up with behavior shifts
- Helps you spot what mattered sooner
- Less noise. More signal.
4) Impact Reports (Change Radar + Evidence)
- “Something changed” isn’t actionable
- Hard to quantify impact quickly
- Priorities become opinion-driven
- Long post-mortems
- Summarizes what changed and where
- Connects change → behavior signals
- Highlights what likely mattered most
- Heatmaps & recordings as supporting evidence
5) Executive Summary
- Change awareness without manual monitoring
- Before/after comparisons without setting up an experiment
- Faster decisions when metrics move
- Confidence on what mattered most
UXsniff vs other tools
UXsniff vs typical UX tools
- Excellent at collecting behavioral data
- You still piece together “what changed” manually
- Often dashboard-heavy
- Great for research, slower for fast decisions
- Collects data and watches for changes
- Prioritizes changes by impact signals
- Retro A/B helps when no experiment was set up
- Built to reduce “why did metrics move?” time
Feature comparison
| Capability | Typical UX tools | UXsniff |
|---|---|---|
| Heatmaps & recordings | Included | Included |
| Rage / dead-click detection from replays | Usually available, often needs filtering & manual review | Rage Alerts that surface the sessions worth watching |
| Detect UX changes automatically | — Often KPI alerts, not UX diffs | Change Radar |
| Retro A/B comparison | Requires planned experiments or manual analysis | Automatic before vs after comparison |
| Impact reports that guide where to look first | — Depends on setup & interpretation | Impact Reports (turns changes into investigation cues) |
| Brand name people mispronounce | ★★★ | ★★★★★ |
Who UXsniff is for
- Deep qualitative research
- Manual session review workflows
- User interviews + validation
- Fast answers when numbers move
- Automatic detection of UX changes
- Clear “what changed + impact” summaries
Simple setup, decision-ready output
- Install one lightweight script
- UXsniff tracks behavior signals (heatmaps + recordings)
- Change Radar detects UX changes
- Retro A/B compares before vs after
- Impact Reports summarize where to focus
- Fewer surprises after deployments
- Less time watching random recordings
- Faster prioritization when KPIs shift
- More confidence in what to fix next
Questions founders ask before getting started
Clear answers. No hype.
How do I install UXsniff?
Installation takes just a few minutes:
- Add a lightweight tracking script to your site
- UXsniff starts collecting data automatically
- No framework lock-in. No complex setup.
Does UXsniff slow down my site?
No. UXsniff is designed to be lightweight and non-blocking, with minimal impact on page performance.
Does UXsniff fix issues automatically?
No. UXsniff helps you detect changes and understand impact so you can decide what to fix. Your team implements the changes.
How does Change Radar work?
Change Radar continuously monitors your site for meaningful UX changes — layout shifts, copy updates, component changes, and interaction differences. When a change is detected, UXsniff automatically compares user behavior before and after the change, so you can understand what actually shifted without running experiments.
What kinds of changes does Change Radar detect?
Change Radar focuses on user-visible changes, including:
- Layout and structure changes
- Copy and content updates
- CTA and button changes
- Flow and interaction differences
It’s designed to catch changes that users experience, not just code diffs.
How is this different from A/B testing?
A/B testing requires split traffic and planning ahead. UXsniff works after changes ship, helping you investigate what happened in production when metrics move unexpectedly — without experiments or traffic splitting.
How do Impact Reports work?
When Change Radar detects a UX change, Impact Reports analyze how user behavior shifted after that change. You can see whether key actions improved or worsened, and which changes are most likely responsible — so you know where to focus first.
How does UXsniff detect rage clicks and unusual behavior?
UXsniff analyzes session recordings to detect patterns like:
- Repeated rapid clicking
- Dead clicks on non-responsive elements
- Friction signals that indicate confusion or frustration
When these patterns appear, Rage Alerts surface them automatically — no manual watching required.
Is UXsniff constantly watching recordings?
UXsniff doesn’t require you to manually review sessions. It continuously analyzes interaction patterns and only surfaces recordings when something unusual happens, saving time and reducing noise.
Is Retro A/B the same as classic A/B testing?
It’s different. Classic A/B is planned and split-traffic. Retro A/B compares behavior before vs after a real change, even if no test was set up.
Do I still need heatmaps and recordings?
They’re still valuable. UXsniff uses them as supporting evidence, while focusing your attention on what changed and what mattered.
Trusted by 10,000+ product teams
Real stories from teams using UXsniff to detect UX issues, understand their impact, and fix problems before metrics spiral.
“We shipped a small checkout change right before Christmas and didn’t realize it broke the checkout button. UXsniff’s Change Radar caught it immediately, and the Impact Report showed that checkout rate had dropped nearly 80%. We knew exactly what we shipped and rolled it back within minutes.”
Nikita
Michael King
Featured author at Moz 
UXsniff is an AI alternative to HotJar that provides comprehensive insights into how users interact with my site. It combines heatmaps, session recordings, and AI analytics to optimize user experience and boost SEO.
Nikita Ilin
Product Lead at Chainstack 
“UXsniff’s Rage Alert flagged users repeatedly clicking the ‘Next’ button. Watching the recording made it obvious the button wasn’t working — before analytics revealed the drop in pageviews.”
Mateusz Makosiewicz
SEO & marketing educator at Ahrefs 