Honest comparison
FeatQ vs UserVoice
A verdict-forward comparison of a focused, flat-priced feedback board and an enterprise customer-intelligence platform with quote-based buying and guided implementation.
The short version
Choose FeatQ if you want a feedback board with voting at a flat price, live today. There are no per-user fees. Create a board, share the link, and start collecting requests in minutes. Every plan also includes a standard MCP server so a coding agent can read the same queue your customers rank.
UserVoice is built for a different scope. It is an enterprise customer-intelligence platform for feedback operations that can connect customer requests with revenue and account context. As of July 2026, its pricing page publishes no prices and directs buyers into a sales conversation. Its own FAQ says most teams launch in 4 to 6 weeks with a dedicated customer success manager, as of July 2026. Vendr reported a median annual contract of $17,688 in March 2026.
This is not a seat-pricing comparison. UserVoice says it never charges by seat. Its model is based on monthly feedback volume, tools, and connected integrations, as of July 2026. The practical contrast is a published flat price versus an undisclosed quote, direct setup versus a guided launch, and built-in MCP access versus REST APIs and webhooks without a documented agent-facing connection.
Buying and setup comparison
UserVoice facts shown with their source dates
| Decision point | FeatQ | UserVoice |
|---|---|---|
| Starting price | $19/mo billed yearly at $228/yr | Not published as of July 2026. Median contract: $17,688/yr, Vendr (March 2026) |
| Pricing model | Flat price with no per-user or per-seat fees | Monthly feedback volume, tools, and connected integrations. Never per seat, as of July 2026 |
| Free trial | Buy directly with a 14-day money-back guarantee | 30-day workspace after a booked demo, per its FAQ as of July 2026 |
| Time to live | Minutes. Create a board and share the link | Most teams launch in 4 to 6 weeks, per its FAQ as of July 2026 |
| Voters or end users | Up to 10,000 voters at the same flat price | Price is based partly on monthly feedback volume, not seats, as of July 2026 |
| MCP and agent access | Every plan, any standard MCP client | No MCP server or agent-facing integration documented as of July 2026 |
| Best for | A focused voting board connected directly to development agents | Enterprise customer intelligence and revenue-weighted feedback operations |
Starting price
FeatQ
$19/mo billed yearly at $228/yr
UserVoice
Not published as of July 2026. Median contract: $17,688/yr, Vendr (March 2026)
Pricing model
FeatQ
Flat price with no per-user or per-seat fees
UserVoice
Monthly feedback volume, tools, and connected integrations. Never per seat, as of July 2026
Free trial
FeatQ
Buy directly with a 14-day money-back guarantee
UserVoice
30-day workspace after a booked demo, per its FAQ as of July 2026
Time to live
FeatQ
Minutes. Create a board and share the link
UserVoice
Most teams launch in 4 to 6 weeks, per its FAQ as of July 2026
Voters or end users
FeatQ
Up to 10,000 voters at the same flat price
UserVoice
Price is based partly on monthly feedback volume, not seats, as of July 2026
MCP and agent access
FeatQ
Every plan, any standard MCP client
UserVoice
No MCP server or agent-facing integration documented as of July 2026
Best for
FeatQ
A focused voting board connected directly to development agents
UserVoice
Enterprise customer intelligence and revenue-weighted feedback operations
No per-user fees means one stable FeatQ bill
FeatQ costs $29 per month or $19 per month billed yearly at $228 per year. The 50-seat Lifetime founding deal is $199 once. Each board supports up to 10,000 voters, and the bill is identical whether 10 people vote or 10,000. You can invite participation without calculating a seat count or asking sales for a revised volume quote.
UserVoice also avoids seat counting, which is a genuine strength. As of July 2026, however, it does not publish the feedback-volume bands, integration choices, or dollar figures needed to calculate a budget. Whole-organization access and flat self-serve pricing are separate benefits. UserVoice offers the first. FeatQ offers both for a focused feedback board.
A published price versus a procurement data point
Vendr reported in March 2026 that the median UserVoice buyer paid $17,688 per year, with contracts ranging from roughly $10,000 to $56,000. That is contract data, not a current list price. It gives buyers a useful budget reference while the vendor page itself withholds every dollar amount.
FeatQ presents the actual checkout choices publicly. There is no discovery call required to learn which price applies. That matters before feature comparison begins because a buyer can decide immediately whether the focused product fits the budget and start testing the real board workflow.
Product and workflow comparison
The focused board and the enterprise platform overlap, but they are not the same product
| Capability | FeatQ | UserVoice |
|---|---|---|
| Customer feedback portal | Yes | Yes |
| Voting and visible statuses | Yes | Yes |
| Roadmap and shipped updates | Roadmap and changelog per board | Roadmap and status communications |
| Embeddable collection | Embeddable widget | In-app widget and internal capture tools |
| Revenue-weighted prioritization | No | Yes |
| Salesforce, Zendesk, and Gainsight | No native integrations | Yes |
| Standard MCP server | Streamable HTTP on every plan | None documented as of July 2026 |
| Guided enterprise onboarding | No. Self-serve setup | Dedicated CSM and professional services |
Customer feedback portal
FeatQ
Yes
UserVoice
Yes
Voting and visible statuses
FeatQ
Yes
UserVoice
Yes
Roadmap and shipped updates
FeatQ
Roadmap and changelog per board
UserVoice
Roadmap and status communications
Embeddable collection
FeatQ
Embeddable widget
UserVoice
In-app widget and internal capture tools
Revenue-weighted prioritization
FeatQ
No
UserVoice
Yes
Salesforce, Zendesk, and Gainsight
FeatQ
No native integrations
UserVoice
Yes
Standard MCP server
FeatQ
Streamable HTTP on every plan
UserVoice
None documented as of July 2026
Guided enterprise onboarding
FeatQ
No. Self-serve setup
UserVoice
Dedicated CSM and professional services
Boards, votes, and visible progress
Both products can collect customer ideas and show progress. FeatQ keeps that loop compact with public or private boards, voting, a roadmap, a changelog, and an embeddable widget. UserVoice places its portal and communications inside a broader customer-intelligence operation.
Revenue and account context
UserVoice is the stronger product when prioritization must use account and revenue context across product and revenue teams. Its Salesforce, Zendesk, and Gainsight integrations support that operating model. FeatQ does not claim those integrations or revenue-weighted prioritization.
Agent access
FeatQ includes a standard streamable-HTTP MCP endpoint on every plan. UserVoice has REST APIs and webhooks, but its developer documentation shows no MCP server or agent-facing integration as of July 2026.
Enterprise implementation
UserVoice offers a dedicated customer success manager, guided onboarding, and professional services. FeatQ is self-serve and does not offer SSO or SAML. Choose based on whether those enterprise services are required, not on a feature-count total.
UserVoice pricing is now a sales conversation
As of July 2026, UserVoice publishes no dollar figures. The page says pricing is based on feedback volume, tools, and connected integrations, never seats. It does not show volume bands or example packages, so a buyer cannot calculate even a starting budget from the website.
This opacity is recent and documented. Archived copies of uservoice.com/pricing from February and May 2026 displayed "Starting at $16,000 per year." That line was removed in the June 30, 2026 site rebuild. Earlier archived copies from June and November 2025 showed Growth at $899 per month annually or $999 quarterly, Team at $1,199 annually or $1,299 quarterly, and Strategic at $1,349 annually or $1,499 quarterly. Those tiers were capped at 1,000, 3,000, and 5,000 unique end users providing feedback. They are history, not current offers.
The result is a clear buying difference. FeatQ lets you choose a published option and create the board. UserVoice asks you to describe feedback volume, tools, and integrations before it reveals a number. Read the complete dated sequence in our UserVoice pricing guide.
Minutes to a board versus a guided launch
FeatQ is designed to be live in minutes. Create a board, choose whether it is public or private, and share the link. Customers can submit and vote while you use the roadmap, changelog, and statuses to make progress visible. There is no sales call before setup and no separate implementation engagement.
UserVoice describes a managed implementation. Its first-party pricing FAQ says most teams launch in 4 to 6 weeks, guided by a dedicated customer success manager, as of July 2026. It also offers professional services and migration help. That support is useful when feedback sources, revenue systems, internal teams, and governance must be coordinated before launch.
Neither path is universally better. The question is whether implementation itself adds value. If the job is to open one clear place for requests and votes, several weeks of guided setup adds process before the first result. If the job is to establish an enterprise feedback operation across departments and existing systems, the dedicated manager and services can reduce internal coordination work.
Three questions that settle the comparison
Start with the operating model you need. Then test the buying path and development workflow against that model.
1. Do you need a board or a customer-intelligence program?
If customers need one place to submit, vote, see roadmap progress, and read shipped updates, FeatQ covers the working loop directly. If product and revenue teams need to weight feedback by account value and pull context through Salesforce, Zendesk, or Gainsight, UserVoice addresses the wider program. Decide this before comparing feature lists because it explains most of the difference in setup and price.
2. Must the price be known before a sales call?
FeatQ publishes every buying option and keeps the bill fixed as voting grows. UserVoice also avoids seat fees, but it requires a quote based on feedback volume, tools, and integrations as of July 2026. If budget approval needs a firm number before vendor discovery, the public FeatQ price removes a procurement step. If a negotiated platform contract is normal, UserVoice can be evaluated through that process.
3. How should engineering consume requests?
UserVoice REST APIs and webhooks support custom integrations. FeatQ takes a direct agent path. Its MCP server lets a standard client list requests, retrieve a request, generate a build specification, update request status, and inspect board stats. If coding agents already sit inside the development loop, standard MCP access removes the need to build and maintain a custom bridge.
Where UserVoice still has an edge
UserVoice earns its place when the organization needs an enterprise feedback operation rather than a focused voting board.
- Revenue-weighted feedback operations for enterprise product and revenue teams, with Salesforce, Zendesk, and Gainsight integrations.
- A dedicated customer success manager, guided onboarding, and professional services for implementation and migration.
- Organization-wide access with no seat counting at very large scale, including thousands of end users across departments.
When FeatQ is the better fit
FeatQ puts the focused feedback loop first. It is the practical UserVoice alternative when these statements describe your needs:
- You want no per-user or per-seat fees. The bill is identical with 10 voters or 10,000.
- You want to create a board, share its link, and be live in minutes without booking a sales call.
- You want a standard MCP server on every plan, with board-scoped bearer keys and no approved-client list.
- You need a focused public or private board with voting, a roadmap, a changelog, and an embeddable widget.
- You want any standard MCP client to list requests, inspect one, generate a specification, and update its status.
- You prefer a published price and direct checkout over a quote based on feedback volume, tools, and integrations.
FeatQ leads with no per-user fees, then a board that is live in minutes, then direct MCP access for agents. UserVoice leads with enterprise feedback intelligence, integrations, and guided services. If you do not need the enterprise layer, buying that scope adds cost and implementation work without improving the core submit, vote, prioritize, and ship loop.
A standard MCP path for development agents
UserVoice provides REST APIs and webhooks. Those are useful building blocks for teams prepared to design, host, and maintain an integration. As of July 2026, its developer documentation does not document an MCP server or another agent-facing integration. An agent therefore has no first-party standard MCP connection to the feedback queue.
FeatQ includes MCP on every plan. The endpoint uses standard streamable HTTP at /api/mcp, and authentication uses board-scoped bearer keys. Any standard MCP client can connect. That includes Codex CLI, Claude Code, Cursor, and other compatible clients, without a client allowlist or a separate enterprise plan.
The available tools cover a concrete request-to-build loop. An agent can list requests, retrieve one request, generate a specification, update a request status, and get board stats. Access stays scoped to the board represented by the key, so the agent works from the same prioritized queue your customers see.
This does not replace product judgment. Votes reveal demand and the agent can prepare implementation work, while your team still decides what belongs on the roadmap and when a request should move. See the endpoint, authentication, and client configuration in the MCP documentation.
Who should pick which product?
Pick FeatQ when the desired outcome is a clear feedback board, not a multi-department customer-intelligence rollout. You can know the price, create the board, and invite voters on the same day. The price remains flat up to 10,000 voters, and the standard MCP server gives engineering agents a direct path to the queue.
Pick UserVoice when feedback must be operated across enterprise product and revenue teams, weighted with account value, and connected to systems such as Salesforce, Zendesk, and Gainsight. Its dedicated customer success manager, professional services, and organization-wide non-seat model can justify a longer buying and implementation process at that scope.
Be honest about requirements that FeatQ does not meet. It has no SSO or SAML and does not offer the revenue-weighted integrations that define UserVoice. Be equally honest about unused platform scope. If those capabilities are not mandatory, FeatQ provides the core feedback workflow with a known bill and much shorter time to first use.
Frequently asked questions
Practical answers about agents, voting, embeds, and pricing.
FeatQ is a focused alternative with no per-user fees, a board that is live in minutes, and MCP access on every plan. It costs $29 per month, $19 per month billed yearly at $228 per year, or $199 once for the 50-seat Lifetime founding deal. UserVoice publishes no prices as of July 2026, while Vendr reported a $17,688 median annual contract in March 2026. The products serve different scopes, so compare the workflow as well as the price.
No. As of July 2026, UserVoice publishes no dollar figures and says pricing depends on monthly feedback volume, tools, and connected integrations, never seats. Its page displayed a starting figure of $16,000 per year in archived February and May 2026 copies, but that figure was removed in the June 30, 2026 site rebuild.
UserVoice says in its pricing FAQ, as of July 2026, that most teams launch in 4 to 6 weeks with guidance from a dedicated customer success manager. Professional services are also available. FeatQ takes a self-serve route: create a board, share the link, and be live in minutes.
UserVoice offers REST APIs and webhooks, but its developer documentation lists no MCP server or agent-facing integration as of July 2026. FeatQ provides a standard streamable-HTTP endpoint at /api/mcp on every plan. Any standard MCP client can connect with a board-scoped bearer key.
No. UserVoice explicitly says its current pricing is never per seat, as of July 2026. It prices around monthly feedback volume, tools, and connected integrations, so the whole organization can have access. FeatQ also has no per-user or per-seat fees, but it publishes a flat price and supports up to 10,000 voters per board.
Still have questions? Contact us
Start a focused feedback board today
Choose a published flat price, invite up to 10,000 voters, and give any standard MCP client direct access to the request queue.
View FeatQ pricing