9 Best Zappi Alternatives for Concept and Ad Testing

For global norms plus predictive ad testing, look at Kantar Marketplace. For ad and innovation testing with a star rating, System1. For measured attention and facial coding on video ads, Adverteyes (formerly Realeyes). For swipe-based idea and concept screening, Upsiide. For a large self-serve panel with automated tests, Toluna Start. For fast agile quant, Suzy. For multi-market surveys, Attest. For automated advanced quant, quantilope.

And if you need concept, ad and pack tests with measured eye tracking and emotion, plus the chance to ask viewers why, Decode runs them in one platform.

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

Zappi alternatives compared at a glance

Creative testing tools compared, pricing as of October 2026. Every cell comes from the vendor’s own pricing or feature pages, except Suzy’s reported enterprise price (Vendr buyer data); “Not stated” means the vendor doesn’t describe it there.

Book a demo of Decode to see a concept or ad test with eye tracking and facial coding measured on real viewers.

What changed at Zappi in 2026

Amplify AI. On June 30, 2026, Zappi launched Amplify AI, a predictive ad testing solution for high-volume social video and YouTube assets. It combines a machine learning model with synthetic respondents trained on Zappi’s human-respondent methodology. Zappi says 84% of Amplify AI predictions landed within one point of human-respondent results, and positions it as directional, not a replacement for human testing. It’s available in the US and UK.

Amplify Hub. Launched alongside it, the Hub brings tested ads into one Ad Library and lets teams group them into Collections to compare performance across campaigns, channels and markets.

More AI across the platform. Through 2026, Zappi also added an interactive AI concept optimization agent alongside its concept creation agents, a synthetic idea pre-screener in beta, and service packages that pair the platform with planned expert support.

What it means for buyers: Zappi now offers both survey-based tests with real respondents and synthetic predictions. When you read a result, check which one it came from.

Stated, predicted or measured: three ways an ad test reads consumers

Stated. Consumers answer survey questions about an ad or concept after seeing it. This is the core of most automated testing, including Zappi Amplify. Answers can include rating scales, open-ended comments and second-by-second emoji picks.

Predicted. Models or synthetic respondents estimate how consumers would answer, without fielding real people. It’s fast and cheap at high volumes, and directional by design. Zappi’s Amplify AI, Kantar’s LINK AI and System1’s AI screening all work this way.

Measured. Eye tracking and facial coding record how real viewers react, second by second, while the ad plays. Kantar’s optional facial coding module and Adverteyes’ webcam testing work this way.

Why it matters: emotion drives ad effectiveness, so knowing which moments trigger it is valuable. In the IPA Databank analysis behind Les Binet and Peter Field’s The Long and the Short of It (2013), 29% of primarily emotional campaigns reported very large profit growth, against 16% of rational ones. Stated and predicted results tell you how an ad scores. Measured results show where attention dropped and which moment triggered the reaction.

Each has a place. Many teams screen with predicted or stated results, then measure the finalists.

Why teams look for Zappi alternatives

Five reasons come up most often. G2 reviewers mention limited customization and uneven norm availability; the others come from how Zappi’s methods and pricing work.

1. Cost per test. Zappi’s own knowledge base puts Amplify TV tests at about $7,000 to $9,000, and other solutions at $2,500 to $5,000, on top of a platform subscription. That can ration testing.

2. Score first, diagnosis second. A percentile against norms shows where an ad landed, not always which moment drove it.

3. Standardized methods. Less flexibility for custom designs or qual follow-up.

4. Synthetic predictions. Some teams want every decision backed by real respondents.

5. Measurement. Stated answers miss second-by-second gaze and facial reaction.

How to choose a Zappi alternative

Check each tool against six things:

1. Test types: concepts, ads (TV, digital, social and static), packs, claims and innovation screening.

2. Benchmarks: category norms by market, and how they’re built.

3. Response type: stated, predicted or measured, and real versus synthetic respondents.

4. Diagnostics: second-by-second attention and emotion, open-ended follow-up, and qual depth.

5. Speed and scale: turnaround, assets per project and markets.

6. Pricing model: per study, subscription or credits.

See measured reaction on your own ad or concept.

The 9 best Zappi alternatives

1. Decode by Entropik: best for concept, ad and pack tests with measured attention and emotion

Zappi scores what consumers say or what models predict. Decode measures how real viewers reacted, moment by moment, and lets you ask them why.

Best for: brand, creative and insights teams that need to know which moment in an ad, or which element on a pack, drove the reaction, not only the overall score.

Key features

• Ad, concept, pack and shelf tests with eye tracking (96% accuracy), facial coding (90%+ accuracy, 62 expressions), voice emotion and second-by-second attention from real participants.

• Surveys alongside each test, plus AI Creative Insights for predictive attention and benchmark scoring on early designs.

• AI Moderator to ask viewers why after the test, in 70+ languages.

• 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

• Shows which moment or element drove the reaction, measured on real viewers.

• Measured diagnostics and qual follow-up in the same study.

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

Good to know

• Category norm coverage may not match Zappi’s or Kantar’s benchmark depth, so ask which norms exist for your market.

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

• 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 know which moment in an ad or which element on a pack drove the reaction, not only the overall score. For out-of-home work, see our guide to OOH creative testing, and for the full head-to-head,

See: Decode vs Zappi comparison

Bring your next ad to Remy: book a demo, or start free.

2. Kantar Marketplace: best for global norms and predictive ad testing

Kantar Marketplace puts Kantar’s ad and concept testing methods on a self-serve or serviced platform.

Best for: global brands that want Kantar’s norms and frameworks across many markets.

Key features: LINK+ ad testing backed by a database of 260,000 ads, optional facial coding, AI predictive eye tracking, LINK AI for predictions in minutes across 66 markets, and ConceptEvaluate and ConceptEvaluate AI for concepts.

Pros: deep norms, and a choice of survey, facial coding and AI predictions for the same ad.

Cons: enterprise-oriented pricing, and the modular products can take time to scope.

Pricing: pay as you go, or a subscription bundling LINK+ and LINK AI; price depends on the number of ads, level of servicing and add-ons such as facial coding or the content optimiser.

Choose Kantar Marketplace if global norms and an established framework matter most.

3. System1: best for ad and innovation testing with a star rating

System1’s Test Your Ad scores ads on a star rating linked to long-term brand growth.

Best for: brand teams that want a simple, emotion-based score for every ad.

Key features: Test Your Ad and Test Your Innovation, Star, Spike and Fluency Ratings, FaceTrace second-by-second emotional journeys, AI screening for a fast directional read, and a database of 5 million+ emotional responses across 80+ countries.

Pros: easy-to-share ratings, validated against business outcomes, with reports from 24 hours.

Cons: emotion is self-reported, with viewers choosing how the ad made them feel, rather than measured from faces or gaze. Outputs are standardized.

Pricing: quote.

Choose System1 if you want a single, emotion-led rating for each ad.

4. Adverteyes (formerly Realeyes): best for measured attention on video ads at scale

Realeyes spun out its ad testing business as Adverteyes in November 2025, with PreView as its core product. It’s the closest tool here to Decode’s measured approach.

Best for: advertisers and platforms scoring large volumes of video creative.

Key features: webcam-based attention and facial expression measurement on opt-in viewers’ own devices, second-by-second attention and emotion traces, predicted focus heatmaps, brand recognition and likability surveys, and benchmarks by market, category and platform.

Pros: measured attention and emotion at scale, backed by a large human-response dataset.

Cons: ad-focused, without the concept, qual and usability research a broader platform offers.

Pricing: human ad testing starts at $1,500; predictive scoring and platform access are quoted.

Choose Adverteyes if video ad attention at scale is your only need.

5. Upsiide: best for swipe-based idea and concept screening

Upsiide, from Dig Insights, screens many ideas quickly with a swipe-style survey.

Best for: innovation teams narrowing long lists of ideas, names or claims.

Key features: Idea Screen and Idea Split, a swipe interface for intuitive reactions, a market simulator for volumetric forecasts, and idea norms you build across your own tests.

Pros: test many ideas in one study at no extra cost per idea, with published plan pricing.

Cons: screening-first, with lighter ad diagnostics.

Pricing: Professional at $299 a month billed annually ($349 monthly) for 3 users; Enterprise is quoted. Audience costs are extra.

Choose Upsiide if you need to screen dozens of ideas fast.

6. Toluna Start: best for a large panel with automated tests

Toluna Start combines automated research solutions with Toluna’s own global panel.

Best for: teams that want panel reach and automated tests in one place.

Key features: an 81M+ member panel in 70 markets, automated solutions for concepts, claims, packs and creative, QProbe AI follow-ups, and Creative Pre-Test Instant, which scores ads with synthetic personas.

Pros: a very large owned panel, with self-serve or serviced options.

Cons: the breadth can make setup complex, and norms vary by solution and market.

Pricing: quote.

Choose Toluna Start if panel reach matters most.

7. Suzy: best for fast agile quant

Suzy runs fast quant with its own consumer audience, now positioned as a decision engine with AI conversations and live sessions.

Best for: enterprise teams that run frequent, quick consumer studies.

Key features: Suzy Insights for quant, Suzy Speaks for AI-moderated voice conversations, Suzy Live for interviews and focus groups, and AI heatmapping that predicts attention.

Pros: speed, an owned panel and broad methods in one platform.

Cons: enterprise contracts are sales-led and annual, and attention insights are predicted rather than measured.

Pricing: a free tier and credit-based Pro and Team plans for its new platform beta (an estimated $150 and $200 a month at 100 credits); enterprise licenses are annual, and Vendr’s buyer data puts the median at about $99,000 a year (reported).

Choose Suzy if speed across many quick studies matters most. For more,

See, Suzy alternatives guide

8. Attest: best for multi-market concept surveys

Attest runs consumer surveys across many markets, with research experts on hand.

Best for: brand teams testing concepts and messages in several countries.

Key features: a 150M+ audience in 59 markets, 70+ languages, video responses, and Explore AI-moderated interviews.

Pros: wide market reach with one flat audience fee.

Cons: it isn’t a norm-based ad testing system, and it’s quant-first.

Pricing: annual subscriptions by credit volume, with prices quoted.

Choose Attest if you need concept surveys across many markets.

9. quantilope: best for automated advanced quant

quantilope automates advanced research methods, with brand and ad tracking.

Best for: insights teams that run conjoint, MaxDiff and implicit tests.

Key features: 15 automated methods, including choice-based conjoint, MaxDiff, TURF and implicit association tests, brand and ad tracking, and quinn, its AI research partner.

Pros: advanced methods without heavy analyst time.

Cons: only the entry plan has a published price, and it’s quant-first, with no eye tracking.

Pricing: Business starts at $2,300 a month for three users; Pro and Enterprise are quoted.

Choose quantilope if advanced quant matters more than creative diagnostics.

Zappi pricing in 2026: what you can confirm and what you can’t

Zappi sells a platform subscription plus research credits, and its own knowledge base puts individual tests at about $2,500 to $5,000, or $7,000 to $9,000 for Amplify TV. Exact totals come from sales. Pricing as of October 2026.

What Zappi publishes

What drives the cost

Test type, markets, sample size, norms, number of assets, and whether you buy a subscription with credits or scoped projects.

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 Zappi test buys a norm-benchmarked score. A Decode plan covers measured attention and emotion on each asset, qual follow-up with AI Moderator, research agents for different use cases, and Insights Hub.

If you’re pricing another year of Zappi Amplify studies, get a Decode quote for the same scope.

Which Zappi alternative is right for you?

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

Find your reason for reconsidering Zappi 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 Zappi cost?

Zappi sells a platform subscription plus research credits, with prices quoted. Its knowledge base puts Amplify TV tests at about $7,000 to $9,000 and other solutions at about $2,500 to $5,000.

2. What is Zappi Amplify AI?

Amplify AI is a predictive ad testing solution Zappi launched on June 30, 2026, for high-volume social video and YouTube assets. It returns results in 30 to 60 minutes, using a machine learning model and synthetic respondents. It’s available in the US and UK.

3. Does Zappi use synthetic respondents?

Yes, in Amplify AI, its synthetic idea pre-screener, and the Respondent Agent in its concept creation agents. Zappi’s core Activate It and Amplify tests use real survey respondents, and Zappi positions Amplify AI as directional rather than a replacement for human testing.

4. Who are Zappi’s main competitors?

For global norms, Kantar Marketplace. For star-rated ad testing, System1. For measured video attention, Adverteyes. For idea screening, Upsiide. For a large panel, Toluna Start. For agile quant, Suzy. For multi-market surveys, Attest. For advanced quant, quantilope. For measured attention and emotion with qual follow-up, Decode.

5. What is the difference between predicted and measured ad testing?

Predicted testing uses models or synthetic respondents to estimate how people would respond, without fielding real viewers. Measured testing records real viewers’ eye movements and facial expressions as the ad plays. Prediction is fast for screening; measurement shows which moments actually held attention.

6. Is Decode a good Zappi alternative?

Yes, when you need to know which moment in an ad or which element on a pack drove the reaction. Decode measures eye tracking, facial coding and attention on real viewers, and lets you ask them why with AI-moderated follow-up.

7. Does Decode offer norms for ad and concept testing?

Decode’s AI Creative Insights scores creative against benchmarks, and measured studies can be compared across your own tests. Talk to our team about the norms available for your category and market.

Zappi review: what it does best and where Decode fits

Zappi is a strong automated platform for concept and ad testing. It runs standardized tests across innovation, advertising and brand health, with curated country norms refreshed every year, a separate Super Bowl norm, and Sales Impact and Brand Impact scores. Amplify covers TV and streaming, digital, social and static ads (Amplify Out-of-Home became Amplify Static in March 2026), Amplify AI adds fast predictions for high-volume social assets, the Amplify Hub keeps tested ads in one library, and AI Quick Reports summarize results. Zappi says more than 350 brands use it, including McDonald’s, Reckitt and Pernod Ricard.

Stay on Zappi if norm-benchmarked scores are how your organization approves creative, and you test at high volume across markets.

Where Zappi stops is a method difference, not a product flaw. Its results come from what survey respondents report and how they behave in a simulated feed, including second-by-second emotion picked with emojis, or from synthetic predictions. It doesn’t measure real viewers’ gaze or facial expressions moment by moment. That’s where Decode fits: measure attention and emotion on hero assets and finalist concepts, and ask viewers why.

Plenty of teams run both. Zappi handles norm-benchmarked screening at volume, and Decode handles measured diagnostics on the assets that carry the most spend. For the full head-to-head, see our Decode vs Zappi comparison.

Find the Zappi alternative that fits your testing

Global norms? Kantar Marketplace. A star rating? System1. Measured video attention only? Adverteyes. Idea screening? Upsiide. A big panel? Toluna Start. Agile quant? Suzy. Multi-market surveys? Attest. Advanced quant? quantilope. Need to see which moment drove the reaction, and ask why? That’s Decode.