9 Best Conveo Alternatives for AI-Moderated Interviews

For the closest end-to-end peer, look at Listen Labs. For methodology control, Outset. For multilingual voice interviews built for agencies, Glaut. For AI plus optional human moderation, Strella. For laddering depth with per-interview pricing, User Intuition. For live human-moderated video, Discuss.io. For real-time group conversations, Remesh. For self-serve with no contract, Koji.

And if you need to compare ad, pack, concept or flow variants on measured reaction, Decode pairs AI-moderated interviews with validated facial coding and eye tracking in the same session.

Not sure which fits? Talk to our research team and bring the study you’re planning next.

Conveo alternatives compared at a glance

AI qualitative research tools compared, pricing as of October 2026. Every cell comes from the vendor’s own pricing or feature pages; “Not stated” means the vendor doesn’t describe it there.

Book a demo of Decode to see a pack or ad test with facial coding and eye tracking measured in the session.

Inferred cues vs measured reaction: how deep each tool’s emotional signal goes

AI interview tools capture emotion at three depths.

Transcript only. What participants said, coded by AI into themes and sentiment. Many AI interview tools work at this level.

Inferred cues. Multimodal AI reads tone of voice, facial expressions and what’s on camera from the interview video, and flags moments worth a closer look. Conveo does this, and does it openly: it tags six emotions from face, voice and words, and links every cue to its moment in the recording. Its own documentation says these readings are leads for review, not proof of how someone felt.

Measured reaction. Purpose-built facial coding and eye tracking with published accuracy benchmarks, recorded second by second against a stimulus such as an ad, a pack or a prototype. It adds attention data: what people actually looked at, and for how long.

Why the difference matters: attention is something participants can’t report. In a 2018 eyetracking study, Nielsen Norman Group found that users spent about 57% of their page-viewing time above the fold, a pattern nobody would describe in an interview. Inferred cues are useful for spotting moments to watch. Measured reaction lets teams compare variants on the same scale and quantify attention.

Why teams look for Conveo alternatives

Five reasons come up again and again in buyer guides and Conveo’s own pricing and FAQ pages.

1. Pricing visibility. Conveo’s pricing page now books a demo, so brand teams can’t see a price before talking to sales.

2. Credit mechanics. Analysis is billed per interview minute, with add-on multipliers for advanced video analysis, so longer interviews and richer analysis cost more.

3. Format fit. Conveo is built for one-to-one AI interviews. It doesn’t run focus groups, and interviews are AI-led, so researchers can’t moderate live; teams that want human moderation or group sessions look elsewhere.

4. Methodology control. Some researchers want more say over probing logic and follow-up depth.

5. Signal depth. Conveo’s emotional cues are useful, but teams testing ads, packs or flows want validated facial coding, gaze and attention compared per variant.

How to choose a Conveo alternative

Evaluate each tool on the same criteria you’d use to evaluate Conveo:

1. AI-moderated research: probing depth, follow-up logic, languages, and video, voice and text formats.

2. AI market research fit: concept, pack and ad testing alongside interviews.

3. AI-powered research workflow: study design, recruitment, synthesis, reports and a repository.

4. AI qual research rigor: methodology control, a human moderation option and participant quality checks.

5. Signal layer: say, do and feel, defined below.

6. Respondents: real versus synthetic, a built-in panel, bringing your own, and B2B reach.

Say, do, feel across AI qualitative research tools

• Say: answers to the moderator’s questions.

• Do: tasks, clicks, screen behavior and on-camera actions.

• Feel: inferred cues (emotion read from video or voice) versus measured reaction (facial coding, eye tracking, voice emotion and attention against a stimulus).

For exploratory interviews, say and inferred cues are often enough. To pick between two ads or two packs, the measured column, and above all what people looked at, is what separates them.

The 9 best Conveo alternatives

1. Decode by Entropik: best for validated facial coding and eye tracking alongside AI interviews

Conveo infers emotional cues from interview video. Decode measures facial coding and eye tracking against the stimulus, with published accuracy benchmarks and attention data.

Best for: consumer insights, brand and UX teams that need to compare how people react to variants of an ad, pack, concept or flow.

Key features

• AI Moderator for interviews at scale, in 70+ languages, plus live moderated sessions.

• Concept, ad, pack and usability tests on prototypes, websites and apps.

• Facial coding (90%+ accuracy, 62 expressions), eye tracking (96% accuracy), voice emotion and attention, captured in the same session through a standard webcam.

• Dedicated research agents for different use cases, so each type of study is handled by an agent built for it. Remy runs creative testing; Cole runs concept validation.

• Insights Hub as your research repository, and 103M+ participants in 151 markets through Cint and Dynata, or your own audience.

Pros

• Compares variants on measured emotion and attention, not only on what people say.

• Each study type is set up by an agent built for it, so studies are faster to start and more consistent.

• Built on 17 patents and used by 150+ global brands, with first evidence delivered in under 48 hours.

Good to know

• Webcam capture for gaze and emotion starts only after a participant gives consent.

• For occasional exploratory interviews, it’s more platform than you need.

• Enterprise plans are tailored to your research volume, and you can start on the Free plan (100 responses a month).

Pricing: Free plan published; Enterprise is quote-based.

Choose Decode if you need to compare how people react to variants of an ad, pack, concept or flow, not only hear what they say about them. For the full head-to-head,

See our Decode vs Conveo

2. Listen Labs: best end-to-end peer with a large panel

Listen Labs is Conveo’s closest structural peer: AI-designed studies, recruiting, AI-moderated interviews and auto-generated reports in one workflow. Salesforce signed a definitive agreement to acquire Listen Labs on September 29, 2026, with closing expected in the fourth quarter of Salesforce’s fiscal year 2027.

Best for: teams that want recruiting, moderation and analysis bundled in one contract.

Key features: AI-moderated video, voice and text interviews in 120+ languages, a 50M+ participant network, emotion scoring from voice, face and words, on-screen behavior analysis, auto-generated reports, and Listen Twins digital-twin simulations.

Pros: a 50M+ participant network, and studies that run from question to report quickly.

Cons: no published prices, and the pending acquisition may change roadmap and contract terms. It also sells digital-twin simulations, which some teams avoid.

Pricing: quote only.

Choose Listen Labs if you want an end-to-end bundle with built-in recruiting. For more,

See our Listen Labs alternatives guide.

3. Outset: best for methodology control

Outset’s AI moderator follows the researcher’s discussion guide closely, with settings for how deep it probes.

Best for: research teams that want control over guides, probing and screeners.

Key features: text, voice, video and voice-to-voice (beta) interviews in 40+ languages, up to 10 follow-ups per question, stimuli and concept tests, picture-in-picture screen share, and Visual Intelligence, which lets the moderator see click paths and label facial emotions in video interviews.

Pros: strong control over probing, with usability sessions in the same platform.

Cons: sales-led pricing; buyers have reported an entry point of about $20,000 a year, which some describe as per seat, from before its December 2025 Series B. Recruiting runs through partner panels or your own audience.

Pricing: quote only.

Outset vs Conveo: Outset gives researchers tighter, scripted control over probing. Conveo leads on async video with multimodal analysis. For more,

See our Outset alternatives guide.

Choose Outset if methodology control matters most.

4. Glaut: best for multilingual AI voice interviews for agencies

Glaut is built for market research agencies and insights teams that want interview depth at survey scale.

Best for: agencies running multi-market studies for clients.

Key features: AI-moderated voice interviews (AIMIs) with dynamic probing, classic surveys in the same platform, 50+ languages, voice or typing for participants, automated coding, creative and concept test templates, and reports that export to PowerPoint.

Pros: built around agency workflows, and AIMIs can be embedded into existing survey and panel tools.

Cons: voice-first and built for market research, with fewer UX methods. Platform pricing is quoted; only its scaleup study price is published.

Pricing: quote after a demo. Its scaleup offer is €5,000 per study (up to 300 interviews of 15 to 20 minutes), with recruiting and incentives quoted separately.

Choose Glaut if you run multilingual market research and want voice interviews inside your survey workflow.

5. Strella: best for AI plus optional human moderation

Strella runs AI-moderated interviews and lets you switch to human moderation when a study needs it.

Best for: research teams that want AI scale with a human-moderated option.

Key features: real-time AI-moderated voice interviews, webcam and screen recording, AI-generated discussion guides, concept, usability and mobile testing, highlight reels and fast theme synthesis.

Pros: AI, hybrid and (in beta) fully human moderation in one platform, with recorded sessions.

Cons: pricing isn’t published, and recruiting runs through partner panels (Respondent and User Interviews, up to 8M participants), so confirm reach and enterprise governance for your audience.

Pricing: custom annual plans, which Strella describes as usage-based, with no per-seat charges.

Choose Strella if you want AI moderation with the option of a human moderator.

6. User Intuition: best for laddering depth with per-interview pricing

User Intuition runs long AI-moderated depth interviews built around laddering, to reach the motivations behind a choice.

Best for: brand and insights teams studying why people buy, switch or churn.

Key features: chat, voice and video interviews with 5–7 levels of laddering, screen share in voice and video, a 4M+ panel, and an Intelligence Hub across studies.

Pros: published per-interview pricing, and interviews rated Poor aren’t billed (panel interviews rated Fair are free too).

Cons: depth-first and AI-only, with no live sessions or human moderation. It also publishes its own Conveo comparison pages, so check its claims independently.

Pricing: Starter at $0 a month, with $30 per quality voice interview ($15 chat, $60 video) and 3 free interviews to start. Professional at $2,499 a month includes 100 voice interviews. Panel recruiting is extra.

Choose User Intuition if the reason behind a decision matters more than reactions to a stimulus.

7. Discuss.io: best for live human-moderated video

Discuss.io runs live interviews, focus groups, AI interviews and surveys on one platform.

Best for: insights teams and agencies that want live conversations with consumers.

Key features: live focus groups and IDIs in 100+ markets with a private observer room and live translation, AI-moderated interviews in 50+ languages that capture tone and expression, built-in panels, and Discuss Intelligence, a searchable research library.

Pros: live human moderation where it matters, plus SOC 2, GDPR and HIPAA support.

Cons: live sessions depend on scheduling, which limits speed and scale compared with AI moderation. Pricing isn’t published.

Pricing: custom plans for brands and agencies.

Choose Discuss.io if live moderated video is central to your research.

See our Discuss.io alternatives guide.

8. Remesh: best for real-time group conversations at scale

Remesh runs live online conversations with hundreds of participants at once, who vote on each other’s answers.

Best for: insights and employee research teams that want to see what a whole group agrees on.

Key features: live conversations with hundreds of participants at once, async Flex conversations with up to 5,000, a Video mode for one-to-one or group interviews, real-time AI analysis, 30+ languages, and an AI research assistant.

Pros: focus-group depth at survey scale, with consensus visible in real time.

Cons: built around group conversations, with one-to-one depth only in its Video mode (its AI-moderated interviews are in closed beta), and pricing is quoted.

Pricing: quoted, as a single project or a software subscription.

Choose Remesh if you need to hear from hundreds of people at once and see where they agree.

9. Koji: best self-serve option with no contract

Koji runs AI-moderated voice and text interviews you can start without a sales call.

Best for: small teams and founders who want AI interviews on a credit card.

Key features: AI-moderated voice and text interviews in 30+ languages (outbound calling on Enterprise), structured question types, a managed panel or your own link, automatic analysis, and EU data storage by default, with US or EU residency on Enterprise.

Pros: published, credit-based pricing, and conversations that fail its quality check aren’t billed.

Cons: no video interviews or visual analysis on self-serve plans, and lighter enterprise governance and recruiting than end-to-end platforms.

Pricing: 10 free signup credits. A text interview uses 1 credit and a voice interview uses 3, at €1 a credit. Insights at €29 a month, Interviews at €79 a month, and Enterprise from €500 a month.

Choose Koji if you want AI interviews without a contract and don’t need video.

Conveo pricing in 2026: what it costs

Conveo doesn’t publish platform prices for brand teams; its pricing page books a demo. For agencies, it publishes $5 per interview minute for the first 1,500 minutes in a study and $2 a minute after that, drawn from a $5,000 yearly credit commitment. Pricing as of October 2026.

What Conveo publishes

What others report

A competitor reports that Conveo’s vendor-supplied G2 listing (updated March 2026) shows Enterprise prepaid annually from $45,000 a year (User Intuition; not confirmed on Conveo’s own pages). Some comparison pages still list a Free plan and a $1,250-a-month Starter plan. Conveo’s pricing page no longer shows them.

How credits work

Studies are priced by total interview minutes analyzed. You’re billed for actual interview length, up to the maximum you set, and enabled analysis features can raise the per-minute rate.

Where Decode fits on value

Decode also uses custom pricing for Enterprise, so this isn’t a cheaper-price claim. It’s a scope comparison. A Conveo plan buys AI-moderated video interviews with inferred multimodal cues. A Decode plan covers AI Moderator, research agents for different use cases, validated facial coding and eye tracking, and Insights Hub.

If you’re scoping a Conveo Enterprise commitment, get a Decode quote for the same scope.

Which Conveo alternative is right for you?

Decision guide: nine reasons for reconsidering Conveo, one shortlist each

Find your reason for reconsidering Conveo on the left, and start your shortlist with the tool on the right. If two apply, let the decision with the most riding on it choose.

Frequently asked questions

1. How much does Conveo cost?

Conveo doesn’t publish brand pricing; its pricing page books a demo. Its agency hub publishes $5 per interview minute for the first 1,500 minutes in a study, then $2, with a $5,000 yearly credit commitment. Recruitment is billed separately.

2. Does Conveo have a free plan?

Not on its pricing page as of October 2026. Some comparison pages still list a Free plan, but Conveo’s pricing page now books a demo instead.

3. Who are Conveo’s main competitors?

For an end-to-end bundle, Listen Labs. For methodology control, Outset. For multilingual agency research, Glaut. For AI plus human moderation, Strella. For laddering depth, User Intuition. For live video, Discuss.io. For group conversations, Remesh. For self-serve, Koji. For measured facial coding and eye tracking, Decode.

4. Outset vs Conveo: which is better?

Outset is better if you want scripted control over how the AI probes. Conveo is better for async video interviews with multimodal analysis, especially in consumer research.

5. Does Conveo analyze facial expressions?

Yes. Conveo reads facial expression, tone of voice and words to tag six emotions, and offers second-by-second facial coding of reactions to video stimuli. Its own docs describe these readings as leads for review, not proof of how someone felt. It doesn’t describe eye tracking.

6. Is Decode a good Conveo alternative?

Yes, when you need to compare variants of an ad, pack, concept or flow on measured reaction. Decode runs AI-moderated interviews and measures facial coding, eye tracking, voice emotion and attention in the same session.

7. How is Decode’s emotion measurement different from Conveo’s multimodal analysis?

Conveo infers emotional cues from interview video and links them to moments in the recording. Decode measures facial coding across 62 expressions (90%+ accuracy) and eye tracking (96% accuracy) second by second against the stimulus, so you also see what people looked at and can compare variants on the same scale.

Conveo review: what it does best and where Decode fits

Conveo is a strong AI interview platform for consumer research. Its AI moderator runs voice and video interviews with real people in 48 languages, and its analysis reads words, tone, facial expressions and on-camera objects such as brands and products. It supports concept, pack, creative and shopper studies, AI-moderated screen-share UX sessions, MaxDiff and pricing research, and it recruits through integrated panels such as Respondent and User Interviews or your own audience. More than 400 enterprise teams use it, and it holds SOC 2, ISO 27001, ISO 27701 and GDPR credentials.

Stay on Conveo if async video interviews are your core method, its multimodal cues give you enough emotional context, and its pricing fits your volume.

Where Conveo stops is a method difference, not a product flaw. Its emotional cues are read from interview video by AI, and its docs present them as leads to review. It doesn’t describe eye tracking or attention data on a stimulus, or published accuracy benchmarks for comparing variants. That’s where Decode fits: for ad, pack, concept and usability tests where you need to compare variants on measured emotion and attention.

Plenty of teams run both. Conveo handles exploratory and multi-market interview programs, and Decode handles the stimulus tests where measured reaction decides the outcome. For the full head-to-head, see our Decode vs Conveo comparison.

Find the Conveo alternative that fits your research

Want an end-to-end bundle? Listen Labs. Methodology control? Outset. Multilingual agency research? Glaut. A human moderator on call? Strella. Laddering depth? User Intuition. Live video? Discuss.io. Group conversations? Remesh. No contract? Koji. Need to compare variants on what people looked at and how they reacted? That’s Decode.