Maze Feedback AS

Name: Maze Feedback AS
Brand: Maze Feedback AS

Unlock the Superpowers of your store teams.

Est 2004|78 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 194|Web traffic 1K|FTEs 2|HQ Leeds, England, GB

MarketsCustomer Experience Platform (CXP)Voice of the Customer

Published Oct 15, 2026

01Common complaints

Company sizes or stages where this product is overkill or insufficient
- Overkill
  - Small retailers with only a handful of stores may not need a dedicated behavior-change platform; simpler survey tooling or NPS collection may suffice.
- Insufficient
  - Global enterprises needing unified omnichannel journey analytics, contact-center workflow, and deep integrations may find Medallia/Qualtrics better aligned.
Industries or use cases where competitors are clearly superior
- High-traffic environments needing ultra-fast “tap feedback” at the door
  - HappyOrNot’s terminal approach can outperform email/SMS surveys for immediacy and volume. (https://www.happy-or-not.com/en/faq/)
Technical requirements that this product cannot meet
- If you require proven, publicly verifiable SOC 2 reports and detailed enterprise security feature documentation prior to procurement, Maze Feedback AS’s public materials may be insufficient without going through security review and NDA.
Budget constraints that make alternatives more appropriate
- If you need transparent low-cost self-serve pricing, Maze Feedback AS is harder to evaluate (no clear public pricing found), so you may prefer tools with published tiers.
Specific workflows or integrations where the product falls short
- Not enough public evidence to confirm coverage for:
  - Complex case management
  - Contact center workflows
  - Advanced data warehousing pipelines
- Consider Medallia / Qualtrics in those cases. (https://www.medallia.com/solutions/location-based-operations/) (https://www.qualtrics.com/en-gb/pricing/)
Red flags in the buying process
- Ambiguity between “Maze Feedback AS / MyMaze” and the separate “Maze” user research platform (maze.co).
  - Procurement teams should verify legal entity, data flows, and product scope.
Current limitations acknowledged by the vendor
- The public FAQ and “How it works” pages focus on benefits and positioning; they do not list a clear “limitations” section in the sources reviewed.
Features on the roadmap (not yet available)
- Not found in sources reviewed.
Scale limitations (at what volume/size does it break down?)
- Not explicitly documented.
- A third-party infrastructure case study indicates historical web usage volumes (1,000–4,000 unique users/day), but it is dated and not a definitive capacity statement. (https://www.alachisoft.com/customers/case-studies/maze/maze-feedback-casestudy.pdf)
Security or compliance gaps
- Public documentation references ISO 27001 and SOC II alignment, but public certification artifacts were not located.
- Data residency and specific enterprise controls (SSO/SCIM/audit logs) are not clearly detailed on the public pages reviewed. (https://en.mymaze.com/security-policy/) (https://en.mymaze.com/privacy-policy/)
Technical debt or architectural limitations mentioned in reviews
- Not found for Maze Feedback AS in accessible review sources.
API limitations or integration constraints
- Not found publicly in reviewed sources.

- Company sizes or stages where this product is overkill or insufficient - Overkill - Small retailers with only a handful of stores may not need a dedicated behavior-change platform; simpler survey tooling or NPS collection may suffice. - Insufficient - Global enterprises needing unified omnichannel journey analytics, contact-center workflow, and deep integrations may find Medallia/Qualtrics better aligned. - Industries or use cases where competitors are clearly superior - High-traffic environments needing ultra-fast “tap feedback” at the door - HappyOrNot’s terminal approach can outperform email/SMS surveys for immediacy and volume. (https://www.happy-or-not.com/en/faq/) - Technical requirements that this product cannot meet - If you require proven, publicly verifiable SOC 2 reports and detailed enterprise security feature documentation prior to procurement, Maze Feedback AS’s public materials may be insufficient without going through security review and NDA. - Budget constraints that make alternatives more appropriate - If you need transparent low-cost self-serve pricing, Maze Feedback AS is harder to evaluate (no clear public pricing found), so you may prefer tools with published tiers. - Specific workflows or integrations where the product falls short - Not enough public evidence to confirm coverage for: - Complex case management - Contact center workflows - Advanced data warehousing pipelines - Consider Medallia / Qualtrics in those cases. (https://www.medallia.com/solutions/location-based-operations/) (https://www.qualtrics.com/en-gb/pricing/) - Red flags in the buying process - Ambiguity between “Maze Feedback AS / MyMaze” and the separate “Maze” user research platform (maze.co). - Procurement teams should verify legal entity, data flows, and product scope. - Current limitations acknowledged by the vendor - The public FAQ and “How it works” pages focus on benefits and positioning; they do not list a clear “limitations” section in the sources reviewed. - Features on the roadmap (not yet available) - Not found in sources reviewed. - Scale limitations (at what volume/size does it break down?) - Not explicitly documented. - A third-party infrastructure case study indicates historical web usage volumes (1,000–4,000 unique users/day), but it is dated and not a definitive capacity statement. (https://www.alachisoft.com/customers/case-studies/maze/maze-feedback-casestudy.pdf) - Security or compliance gaps - Public documentation references ISO 27001 and SOC II alignment, but public certification artifacts were not located. - Data residency and specific enterprise controls (SSO/SCIM/audit logs) are not clearly detailed on the public pages reviewed. (https://en.mymaze.com/security-policy/) (https://en.mymaze.com/privacy-policy/) - Technical debt or architectural limitations mentioned in reviews - Not found for Maze Feedback AS in accessible review sources. - API limitations or integration constraints - Not found publicly in reviewed sources.

Deal disqualifiers: what makes a POOR fit

You only need a simple “smiley terminal” pulse in-store.
You have no ability to contact customers digitally (no membership/CRM capture).
You need a full enterprise omnichannel CX suite with heavy integrations and governance already standardized on Medallia/Qualtrics.

02Why they buy

Competitive advantages validated by customer feedback (not just vendor claims)
- Limitation
  - Independent buyer reviews for Maze Feedback AS were not found at scale in accessible review platforms.
- What is at least directionally supported by vendor content
  - The platform’s primary differentiation is the coupling of customer feedback to daily coaching behaviors for each store (not just reporting). (https://en.mymaze.com/how-it-works)
Unique features and capabilities competitors lack
- “Daily training app” framing + store-specific recommendations is a sharper behavioral focus than many generic VoC tools (inference based on positioning).
Differentiation from competitors based on reviews
- Not enough third-party reviews available for Maze Feedback AS specifically.
Value propositions with evidence from case studies
- Vendor-published outcomes (Plantasjen basket size + engagement metrics) suggest possible revenue linkage, but lack disclosed methodology. (https://en.mymaze.com/resources/insights/event/insights-from-norwegian-embassy-event-in-london/)
Areas where competitors clearly have advantages (be balanced)
- Medallia / Qualtrics
  - Broader enterprise suite coverage and likely stronger third-party validation footprint.
- HappyOrNot
  - Extremely low-friction in-store capture and predictable scaling model (no per-feedback pricing). (https://www.happy-or-not.com/en/faq/)

- Competitive advantages validated by customer feedback (not just vendor claims) - Limitation - Independent buyer reviews for Maze Feedback AS were not found at scale in accessible review platforms. - What is at least directionally supported by vendor content - The platform’s primary differentiation is the coupling of customer feedback to daily coaching behaviors for each store (not just reporting). (https://en.mymaze.com/how-it-works) - Unique features and capabilities competitors lack - “Daily training app” framing + store-specific recommendations is a sharper behavioral focus than many generic VoC tools (inference based on positioning). - Differentiation from competitors based on reviews - Not enough third-party reviews available for Maze Feedback AS specifically. - Value propositions with evidence from case studies - Vendor-published outcomes (Plantasjen basket size + engagement metrics) suggest possible revenue linkage, but lack disclosed methodology. (https://en.mymaze.com/resources/insights/event/insights-from-norwegian-embassy-event-in-london/) - Areas where competitors clearly have advantages (be balanced) - Medallia / Qualtrics - Broader enterprise suite coverage and likely stronger third-party validation footprint. - HappyOrNot - Extremely low-friction in-store capture and predictable scaling model (no per-feedback pricing). (https://www.happy-or-not.com/en/faq/)

03Field reports

Important limitation: review ecosystem mismatch

Most major review platforms (G2, TrustRadius) prominently cover “Maze” (the user research/prototype testing platform), which is a different product/company entity.
Maze Feedback AS (vendor website) is a different product/company entity and does not appear to have a large footprint on mainstream B2B review platforms in the sources accessed.
As a result:
- Review quotes below are primarily for Maze Feedback AS from vendor case studies/testimonials on the vendor site and limited app-review aggregation.
- Community/social quotes available at scale largely refer to “Maze” usability studies (the user research platform) used to recruit research participants—again, not the same as the retail CX training app, but relevant as a reputational signal if your organization interacts with Maze’s broader ecosystem.

- Most major review platforms (G2, TrustRadius) prominently cover “Maze” (the user research/prototype testing platform), which is a different product/company entity. - Maze Feedback AS (vendor website) is a different product/company entity and does not appear to have a large footprint on mainstream B2B review platforms in the sources accessed. - As a result: - Review quotes below are primarily for Maze Feedback AS from vendor case studies/testimonials on the vendor site and limited app-review aggregation. - Community/social quotes available at scale largely refer to “Maze” usability studies (the user research platform) used to recruit research participants—again, not the same as the retail CX training app, but relevant as a reputational signal if your organization interacts with Maze’s broader ecosystem.

Positive vendor-published testimonials (useful but not independent)

Maze’s “How it works” page includes:
- “I would go so far as to say it’s the most engaging app or new platform that we’ve launched during my time at REISS.” (vendor case study/testimonial)
The same page claims vendor usage numbers for retail stores (vendor claim; not independently verified in this report). (official vendor product/feature page)

Case-study style outcomes (vendor-published; methodology unclear)

A vendor event write-up references Plantasjen and claims:
- “Average basket size increase by [vendor-reported amount]” associated with “offer to help” interactions.
- “After just a few weeks” store team “offered [help to a large portion of customers]” and “a large portion said they would recommend Plantasjen.”
- This appears as a narrative result; the write-up does not publish the study design, sampling, controls, or attribution methodology. (vendor case study / insights page)

- A vendor event write-up references Plantasjen and claims: - “Average basket size increase by [vendor-reported amount]” associated with “offer to help” interactions. - “After just a few weeks” store team “offered [help to a large portion of customers]” and “a large portion said they would recommend Plantasjen.” - This appears as a narrative result; the write-up does not publish the study design, sampling, controls, or attribution methodology. (vendor case study / insights page)

Negative/critical signals (limited direct retail-buyer reviews found)

App review aggregation (small sample; should not be over-weighted)
- An app-review aggregation site summarizing Google Play reviews for “MyMaze” shows:
  - A user review reporting notification issues (“Even though my phone is set up to get notifications, the app does send them to me.”).
  - An older user review claiming an antivirus flagged malware (“AVG antivirus says that this app carries a malware”).
- This is a tiny sample and not validated; treat as anecdotal but worth checking during a pilot rollout. (app-review aggregator / Google Play review snapshots)

- App review aggregation (small sample; should not be over-weighted) - An app-review aggregation site summarizing Google Play reviews for “MyMaze” shows: - A user review reporting notification issues (“Even though my phone is set up to get notifications, the app does send them to me.”). - An older user review claiming an antivirus flagged malware (“AVG antivirus says that this app carries a malware”). - This is a tiny sample and not validated; treat as anecdotal but worth checking during a pilot rollout. (app-review aggregator / Google Play review snapshots)

Review platforms (Gartner / G2 / TrustRadius)

Gartner Peer Insights
- Attempted to locate Maze Feedback AS reviews; this research did not find an obvious Gartner Peer Insights listing for Maze Feedback AS.
- Note: Gartner Peer Insights is accessible generally, but vendor/product availability varies. (Gartner Peer Insights listing/search)
G2 / TrustRadius
- Accessible listings exist for “Maze” (the user research platform), with many user research tool reviews; however these do not apply to Maze Feedback AS retail CX platform. (G2 product pages; TrustRadius product pages)

- Gartner Peer Insights - Attempted to locate Maze Feedback AS reviews; this research did not find an obvious Gartner Peer Insights listing for Maze Feedback AS. - Note: Gartner Peer Insights is accessible generally, but vendor/product availability varies. (Gartner Peer Insights listing/search) - G2 / TrustRadius - Accessible listings exist for “Maze” (the user research platform), with many user research tool reviews; however these do not apply to Maze Feedback AS retail CX platform. (G2 product pages; TrustRadius product pages)

Community/Social sentiment (Maze usability study ecosystem, not retail CX product)

Reddit threads on participant forums include strong criticism of “Maze” studies (the user research platform), including alleged auto-rejections and support responsiveness issues.
- Example negative quote (participant perspective): “Sim, eles não dão feedback de nada, você tenta entrar em contato sobre um estudo problemático e eles simplesmente cagam para você...” (complaining about lack of feedback/support and rejection). (community forum thread)
- Example mixed/positive quote: one user reports, “I’ve been doing Maze studies daily for 15 months… I’ve done quite a few with no issues…” (community forum thread)
Why this matters (even if different product)
- If your organization uses Maze (the user research platform) for participant recruitment or research ops, these complaints may affect participant quality/availability.
- If you only evaluate Maze Feedback AS for retail CX coaching, this community data is less directly applicable.

- Reddit threads on participant forums include strong criticism of “Maze” studies (the user research platform), including alleged auto-rejections and support responsiveness issues. - Example negative quote (participant perspective): “Sim, eles não dão feedback de nada, você tenta entrar em contato sobre um estudo problemático e eles simplesmente cagam para você...” (complaining about lack of feedback/support and rejection). (community forum thread) - Example mixed/positive quote: one user reports, “I’ve been doing Maze studies daily for 15 months… I’ve done quite a few with no issues…” (community forum thread) - Why this matters (even if different product) - If your organization uses Maze (the user research platform) for participant recruitment or research ops, these complaints may affect participant quality/availability. - If you only evaluate Maze Feedback AS for retail CX coaching, this community data is less directly applicable.

Plantasjen (vendor event write-up)

Claimed outcomes
- Modest increase in average basket size associated with staff offering help.
- A large portion of staff reported offering help after a few weeks.
- Most customers would recommend.
Critical evaluation
- The write-up does not disclose methodology (sample size, measurement window, controls, confounders like promotions/seasonality, store mix).
- Attribution to Maze versus a broader change program is not independently validated. (Source: Vendor event write-up)

- Claimed outcomes - Modest increase in average basket size associated with staff offering help. - A large portion of staff reported offering help after a few weeks. - Most customers would recommend. - Critical evaluation - The write-up does not disclose methodology (sample size, measurement window, controls, confounders like promotions/seasonality, store mix). - Attribution to Maze versus a broader change program is not independently validated. (Source: Vendor event write-up)

“Service Experience” content page (Plantasjen mention)

Claimed outcome
- The vendor content cites a comparatively high response rate to Maze surveys in the context of Plantasjen.
Critical evaluation
- Response rates in retail are highly dependent on audience, incentive, channel, and message timing; without methodology, this is a directional benchmark rather than a guarantee. (Source: Official vendor content)

Infrastructure / technical case study (third-party vendor)

Claimed content
- A third-party vendor case study describes the performance scale Maze Feedback handled and the demands placed on the web application, presented as context for caching/product performance.
Critical evaluation
- This is a vendor-authored case study intended to support caching software; it may be credible for technical context but does not serve as independent validation of CX outcomes. (Source: Third-party vendor case study)

- Claimed content - A third-party vendor case study describes the performance scale Maze Feedback handled and the demands placed on the web application, presented as context for caching/product performance. - Critical evaluation - This is a vendor-authored case study intended to support caching software; it may be credible for technical context but does not serve as independent validation of CX outcomes. (Source: Third-party vendor case study)

04Best fit

Company sizes

Best fit likely:
- Mid-market to enterprise retail chains with many locations across regions where performance variation across stores is a business problem.
Vendor evidence: vendor materials claim deployments across a very large number of stores and emphasize retail verticals. (Official vendor announcement)

Industries and verticals where adoption is strongest (with customer examples)

Vendor-stated verticals
- Fashion/Sport
- Grocery
- Optician
- Pharmacy (Vendor press materials)
Customer examples mentioned on vendor content
- Plantasjen (garden retail)
- Specsavers (optician) (Vendor event insights / customer case materials)

Roles and personas: decision makers AND end users

Decision makers
- Retail operations leadership
- CX/VoC program owners
- Regional managers
- Store performance / training leaders
End users
- Store managers
- Frontline associates (daily training app users) (Vendor product overview)

Pain points and challenges the product addresses

Store-to-store performance variation
Difficulty translating survey results into daily behaviors
Low engagement with traditional CX dashboards
Need for store-specific recommendations rather than chain-wide averages (vendor framing). (Vendor product documentation)

Qualification criteria: what makes a GREAT fit

You have identifiable store-level KPIs (conversion, basket size, service metrics) and want to connect customer feedback to coaching routines.
You can operationalize feedback: managers have time, accountability, and playbooks.
You have (or can access) customer contact data to trigger email/SMS surveys post-purchase. (Vendor FAQ)

05The pitch

What the product does (core value proposition in objective terms)

Maze Feedback AS ("Maze") sells a retail-focused customer experience (CX) and frontline enablement platform.
The product positioning emphasizes:
- Collecting post-purchase customer feedback via email/SMS surveys.
- Translating location-level feedback into actionable insights for each store.
- Delivering daily coaching/training prompts inside a “training app” used by frontline staff and store managers.
- “Maze Intelligence” (AI) that produces store-specific recommendations (vendor product overview and feature pages).

- Maze Feedback AS ("Maze") sells a retail-focused customer experience (CX) and frontline enablement platform. - The product positioning emphasizes: - Collecting post-purchase customer feedback via email/SMS surveys. - Translating location-level feedback into actionable insights for each store. - Delivering daily coaching/training prompts inside a “training app” used by frontline staff and store managers. - “Maze Intelligence” (AI) that produces store-specific recommendations (vendor product overview and feature pages).

Target market and market positioning

Primary market: multi-location retail chains (vendor examples/verticals include Fashion/Sport, Grocery, Optician, Pharmacy) (vendor resources and press).
Positioned against:
- Traditional “collect-and-report” CX survey tools.
- Simple in-store “smiley terminal” feedback devices.
- Mystery shopping programs (vendor product overview).

Get a comprehensive analysis of Maze Feedback AS including market position, competitive landscape, adoption trends, and peer benchmarks.

Download full report →