UX benchmark

Sticking to competitors in the sector is a common mistake. It shows how you position yourself, but users, for their part, use plenty of other services every day. So we target both players in the field (direct and indirect competitors) and services from other sectors that handle certain features we are interested in.

Benchmarks are classically split into four types: internal (between entities of the same organisation), competitive (against direct competitors), functional (on a comparable function, whatever the sector) and generic (on universal processes). In UX, two readings matter most: functional or inspirational depending on the objective, direct or indirect competitors depending on the scope. Whatever the category, what counts is what you are trying to observe.

The ergonomic audit is an expert analysis that draws on established criteria and frameworks. It is systematic and details every critical element of a website or a mobile app. The benchmark, for its part, compares the way one part or another of your service is handled by others. It is therefore more a point of reference against standards than a validation based on ergonomic criteria. One does not replace the other.

The benchmark is most useful in a discovery or ideation phase, when a concept is being defined. It also informs the preparation and the interpretation of a user test or an audit, both ahead of them and afterwards. Finally, it comes into its own in continuous monitoring of usage and design trends.

A benchmark shows what exists, not what actually works for your users. It does not replace testing or observation. In professional environments, access to the interfaces can be limited (secure areas, licensed tools). Several options exist. Ask the client for the access they have, sign up for the demos and trial periods of the platforms, draw on publicly available screenshots and videos, or refocus the analysis on the accessible parts of the journey.