Fullview AI

Name: Fullview AI
Brand: Fullview AI
Rating: 4.8 (14 reviews)

AI Native

Cut support time in half - Understand and resolve complex user issues faster and smarter.

Est 2021|Valuation $37M|Raised $9.2M|33 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 3K|Website|Web traffic 9K|FTEs 13|HQ Copenhagen, Capital Region, DK

MarketsSession Replay & Heatmaps

01Competitive Landscape

| Aspect | Fullview | Surfly | FullStory | |--------|---------|--------|----------| | Starting Price | Quote-based (Free trial; some vendor and third-party listings indicate Free/Pay-go/Enterprise tiers) | Public pricing visibility varies by market and third-party listings (some show per-user starting prices in certain locales) | Typically positioned at the enterprise end; public details vary and are not usually fully transparent | | Best For | Support teams needing replay + cobrowse + helpdesk workflow + AI guidance | Enterprises wanting robust cobrowsing/screen collaboration | Product & UX teams needing deep digital experience analytics and session replay at scale | | Key Strength | Combination of cobrowsing and session replay in a support-first workflow; ticket integrations; console context | Mature cobrowsing vendor; established enterprise usage in some verticals | Mature analytics depth (funnels, DX insights), broad adoption | | Key Weakness | Limited public documentation on security/compliance certifications; a small public review footprint; quote-based pricing introduces opacity | May require additional tooling for replay/engineering context depending on stack | Not cobrowsing-first; may not solve live guidance workflows | - Direct competitors and their key differentiators - Surfly - Focused on cobrowsing/screen collaboration with broad industry usage and procurement presence. - Glance - Commonly deployed in financial services; often selected for enterprise procurement familiarity and long track records. - FullStory/Hotjar - Focus on product analytics and research rather than live support hand-holding. - Blitzz - Publishes cobrowsing pricing publicly, which can simplify budgeting compared to quote-based vendors. - Pricing comparison: value proposition vs alternatives - Fullview’s quote-based approach enables enterprise negotiation but reduces transparency for buyers seeking predictable, self-serve pricing. - Surfly and Blitzz tend to provide more visible public pricing in some contexts, enabling easier early-stage comparisons. - Customer testimonials comparing this product to competitors - Vendor messaging contrasts Fullview with analytics-focused replay tools (FullStory, Hotjar), noting those tools do not include live cobrowsing or helpdesk-first workflows. - Founder commentary frames Fullview as a web-embedded alternative to legacy tools that require downloads; this is vendor messaging rather than independent evaluation. - Market share and adoption trends - No verifiable market share data was identified in the sources reviewed. Adoption signals are qualitative (customer logos, a small public review footprint, community/product launch activity). - When customers choose competitors instead (and why) - Organizations select Surfly/Glance when cobrowsing is the primary requirement, procurement prefers long-established vendors, or on-prem/hybrid deployments are needed. - Organizations select FullStory/Hotjar when product analytics, funnels, and UX optimization are primary concerns and support workflows are secondary.

01Competitive Landscape

Aspect	Fullview	Surfly	FullStory
Starting Price	Quote-based (Free trial; some vendor and third-party listings indicate Free/Pay-go/Enterprise tiers)	Public pricing visibility varies by market and third-party listings (some show per-user starting prices in certain locales)	Typically positioned at the enterprise end; public details vary and are not usually fully transparent
Best For	Support teams needing replay + cobrowse + helpdesk workflow + AI guidance	Enterprises wanting robust cobrowsing/screen collaboration	Product & UX teams needing deep digital experience analytics and session replay at scale
Key Strength	Combination of cobrowsing and session replay in a support-first workflow; ticket integrations; console context	Mature cobrowsing vendor; established enterprise usage in some verticals	Mature analytics depth (funnels, DX insights), broad adoption
Key Weakness	Limited public documentation on security/compliance certifications; a small public review footprint; quote-based pricing introduces opacity	May require additional tooling for replay/engineering context depending on stack	Not cobrowsing-first; may not solve live guidance workflows

Direct competitors and their key differentiators
- Surfly
  - Focused on cobrowsing/screen collaboration with broad industry usage and procurement presence.
- Glance
  - Commonly deployed in financial services; often selected for enterprise procurement familiarity and long track records.
- FullStory/Hotjar
  - Focus on product analytics and research rather than live support hand-holding.
- Blitzz
  - Publishes cobrowsing pricing publicly, which can simplify budgeting compared to quote-based vendors.
Pricing comparison: value proposition vs alternatives
- Fullview’s quote-based approach enables enterprise negotiation but reduces transparency for buyers seeking predictable, self-serve pricing.
- Surfly and Blitzz tend to provide more visible public pricing in some contexts, enabling easier early-stage comparisons.
Customer testimonials comparing this product to competitors
- Vendor messaging contrasts Fullview with analytics-focused replay tools (FullStory, Hotjar), noting those tools do not include live cobrowsing or helpdesk-first workflows.
- Founder commentary frames Fullview as a web-embedded alternative to legacy tools that require downloads; this is vendor messaging rather than independent evaluation.
Market share and adoption trends
- No verifiable market share data was identified in the sources reviewed. Adoption signals are qualitative (customer logos, a small public review footprint, community/product launch activity).
When customers choose competitors instead (and why)
- Organizations select Surfly/Glance when cobrowsing is the primary requirement, procurement prefers long-established vendors, or on-prem/hybrid deployments are needed.
- Organizations select FullStory/Hotjar when product analytics, funnels, and UX optimization are primary concerns and support workflows are secondary.

Aspect

Fullview

Surfly

FullStory

Starting Price

Quote-based (Free trial; some vendor and third-party listings indicate Free/Pay-go/Enterprise tiers)

Public pricing visibility varies by market and third-party listings (some show per-user starting prices in certain locales)

Typically positioned at the enterprise end; public details vary and are not usually fully transparent

Best For

Support teams needing replay + cobrowse + helpdesk workflow + AI guidance

Enterprises wanting robust cobrowsing/screen collaboration

Product & UX teams needing deep digital experience analytics and session replay at scale

Key Strength

Combination of cobrowsing and session replay in a support-first workflow; ticket integrations; console context

Mature cobrowsing vendor; established enterprise usage in some verticals

Mature analytics depth (funnels, DX insights), broad adoption

Key Weakness

Limited public documentation on security/compliance certifications; a small public review footprint; quote-based pricing introduces opacity

May require additional tooling for replay/engineering context depending on stack

Not cobrowsing-first; may not solve live guidance workflows