Real insights from real people.
Synthetic respondents can inspire hypotheses. Decisions need evidence. Here is how real, moderated conversations compare with simulated ones.
Same brief, run here
What you would do with synthetic respondents, and what happens on Userflix.
- 01
Persona prompts
Real screening. Panels and your own lists select real people who match.
- 02
Simulated answers
Real conversations by voice or messaging, with real hesitation and contradiction.
- 03
Instant output
A report that fills within the fieldwork window, with counts you can defend.
- 04
Plausibility
Traceability. Every finding links to a transcript excerpt from a consenting participant.
- 05
Hypothesis generation
Keep using synthetic for it. Then validate here before the decision.
Userflix vs Synthetic Respondents
Source of answers
Capacity to surprise
Evidence trail
Consent and ethics
Speed
Best use
When to use Userflix instead of Synthetic Respondents
- You need authentic user perspectives and real-world insights
- You're making product decisions that affect real users
- You want to understand genuine emotional responses
- You need to validate concepts with actual target users
- You want to capture unpredictable, human insights
Userflix delivers authentic insights from real people. While synthetic respondents might be fast and cheap, they can't replicate genuine human emotions, unpredictable responses, or real-world context. For product decisions affecting real users, insights from actual people provide validation that synthetic data can't.
Fair comparison
When synthetic respondents still help
- Brainstorming hypotheses before fieldwork
- Pressure-testing a discussion guide
- Early persona development with no decision attached
Userflix is a third field between survey and classic qual. It extends research expertise, it does not replace it.
Next step
See how the interviews run, or pick a use case.
Ready for real user insights?
Get authentic perspectives from real people