I built these for client work, where the paid platforms cost more than the projects justified. They are free to use, with no sign-up, no limits and no trial period. Set up a study, send the link, and read the results as they arrive.
01
Set it up
Paste your cards or your navigation tree. It takes a minute or two.
02
Send the link
Participants click it and start. They do not need an account.
03
Read the results
The analysis updates as responses arrive. Export whatever you need.
Research tools
Each with a finished example
For designing navigation, checking it works, and getting the wording right before you ask anyone. Every one comes with a real example you can read without signing up.
01
Card Sorting
Give people a list of your pages or tasks and ask them to group the ones that belong together, then name each group. Use it before you design a menu, when you want to know how your audience organises things rather than how you do. Open, closed and hybrid sorts are all supported.
Participants agreed on the four groups but not on their names: “My Account”, “Accounts” and “Banking” all describe the same set of cards. The structure is sound; the labels are the problem.
Paste your navigation as an indented outline, write a few tasks, and watch where people click to find each one. Use it after card sorting, to check that the structure you designed works. Nothing needs to be built first: participants only see the menu.
What you get
Task success rate
Directness, meaning they found it without backtracking
Three of the four tasks pass. The fourth reaches 39%, and the first-click column shows why: people look for a recurring payment under “Accounts” rather than “Payments”. The label is right, the parent is wrong.
Upload a screenshot or a mockup, write a task, and see where people click first. People who start in the right place usually finish the task, so this tells you early whether a screen points the way. Nothing needs to work: a picture of the screen is enough.
What you get
A heatmap of first clicks on every screen
The share who clicked in the areas you marked as correct
Paste an interview guide, a survey, or the task wording for a usability test. Each question is checked against nine ways phrasing skews answers, such as leading, loaded and double-barrelled questions, and anything flagged comes back with a rewrite. Use it before you send a study out, when the wording is still cheap to change.
Run polls, word clouds, ratings, rankings and Q&A in a workshop, a client session or a call. People join from their phones with a six-digit code or a QR, and the results build up on the projected screen as they answer. You decide when each result is revealed.
What you get
Multiple choice, word cloud, open text, rating, NPS, agree / disagree and ranking
Join by six-digit code or QR, no app or account
Presenter view with results revealed when you choose
Q&A with upvotes, plus a results page and CSV export afterwards
A link people answer in their own time, one question per screen, with the same question types as live polling. Use it after a workshop or an event, for a customer NPS, or for a regular team pulse.
What you get
Multiple choice, word cloud, open text, rating, NPS, agree / disagree and ranking
Required or optional questions, and a response cap if you want one
Results per question, with the NPS score and agree / disagree bars
CSV with one row per person, one row per answer, or a summary
A shared online whiteboard for a workshop in the room or remote. Anyone with the link can add notes, and you run it with a timer everyone sees and dot voting. Start blank or from one of the methods below, laid out and ready.
What you get
Sticky notes, text, shapes, frames, arrows and a pen
Everyone's cursor and name, live
Dot voting with hidden results, and a shared timer
Check-ins, empathy maps, premortems, retrospectives, prioritisation and story structures. Each method explains how to run it step by step, credits where it came from, and opens as a board.
Enter the visitors and conversions for each variation and find out whether the difference is real or noise, with advice on whether to ship or keep running.
For measuring what a product does and sizing the team behind it
12
Product Metrics Calculator and Metric Tree
Pick B2B SaaS, a consumer app, an online shop, a marketplace or ad-funded media, put in a month of numbers, and see every metric that matters with the working shown. Then roll your inputs up to a North Star and write the targets as OKRs, OGSM or OHLs.
What you get
CAC, LTV, payback, churn, NRR and more, graded against rules of thumb
The funnel step where you lose the most people
A metric tree that recalculates the North Star as you change inputs
The same targets as OKRs, a North Star, OGSM and OHLs
See how product designers, researchers, design systems designers, managers and heads of design split their week, what that time buys the business, and how a design org should be shaped at each company stage. Every number is graded for evidence quality.
Product manager, product owner, technical PM, technical program manager and domain expert, separated: where each role's week goes, which decisions it owns, and how many of each a team your size needs, adjusted for how specialised your domain is.
What you get
Time allocation for eight product roles
Decision rights: who is accountable for what
Team mix from engineer count, product type and domain
Card sorting is a research method for designing navigation. You give participants a list of items (pages, tasks, product categories) and ask them to group the ones that belong together and name each group. Running it with 15 to 30 people shows you which items people reliably file together, and which ones they argue about. It is the method to use before you design a menu, not after.
Tree testing checks a structure you have already designed. Participants see your navigation as a plain text outline and are given a task, such as finding out how to replace a lost card, then click through to where they expect the answer to be. Card sorting tells you how people would organise things; tree testing tells you whether the organisation you built works. They are usually run in that order.
You show people a screen and a task, such as changing their password, and record the first place they click. Someone who starts in the right place usually goes on to finish the task, and someone who starts wrong usually doesn't, so where the first clicks land tells you early whether a screen points the way. It works on a screenshot or a mockup, so you can run it before anything is built.
For card sorting, patterns start to appear around 15 participants and are usually stable by 30. Adding people past that rarely changes the grouping. For tree testing, 15 to 20 people per task set is enough to see which tasks fail. These are small numbers because you are looking for patterns in behaviour, not measuring a population.
No. You send a link and they start. There is no sign-up, no email address collected and no cookie set for them. You do not need an account either: a study is created and reached through its link.
Yes, and there is no trial period, no watermark on exports and no limit on responses. I built these tools for my own client work, where the paid platforms cost more than the projects justified, and left them open.
An agreement score for every card, showing how consistently people filed it in the same place; a similarity matrix showing how often each pair of cards was grouped together; a dendrogram that clusters the cards and lets you adjust where you cut it; and the category names participants invented, merged where identical. Everything exports to CSV or JSON.
Studies and responses are stored in a Postgres database. Responses contain what participants clicked and how long they took, with no names, no email addresses and no tracking. You can delete a study and all its responses at any time, and deletion is immediate and permanent.
Yes. Each study has two links: one for participants, and a private one for you that opens the analysis. You can also publish the results, which produces a third link that shows the analysis to anyone who opens it while keeping the ability to edit or delete the study with you.
Keep it somewhere. The link is what proves the study is yours, and it is also stored in the browser that created the study, so if you still have that browser, your results are still reachable. If you lose both, get in touch and I can recover it.
Want someone to run the research, not just the tool?
I do information architecture and product discovery work with teams who have a structure problem and no time to prove it. A study like these is usually the first week.