UX Audit Services That Show Where Users Get Stuck and What to Fix First

A UX audit is a structured review of a website or app against how real users behave: where they hesitate, where they drop out and what blocks the action you want them to take. We combine analytics, session recordings, heatmaps and a heuristic review by an experienced designer, then hand over a ranked list of fixes with the expected impact of each. The point is to fix the pages that cost you money first, instead of redesigning everything because the site feels dated.

Ours is a prioritised fix list rather than a long slide deck. Each issue has a short description, the evidence behind it, such as a recording clip, heatmap, screenshot or analytics figure from your own data, a rating for impact and effort, and a recommended fix. The costliest problems come with redesigned screens in Figma. Alongside that sits a short summary of the biggest themes and, where traffic allows, a plan for A/B tests. We walk your team through it on a call.

It depends on the size of the website or app and what you want delivered. The main factors are the number of key journeys to review, whether there is a logged-in product as well as a public site, whether analytics and recordings are already collecting data, how deep the accessibility review goes, and whether you want redesigned screens or only the fix list. Implementing the fixes is quoted separately. We look at the site or app first and then send a fixed quote, so the price is agreed before work starts.

It depends mostly on the size of the site and on how much data already exists. A small site with GA4 and session recordings already running can be reviewed quickly, because the evidence is waiting. A large store or a product with many logged-in flows takes longer, and if no recording tool is installed we first need to collect enough real sessions to see patterns. We give you a timeline with the fixed quote and share anything urgent as soon as we find it, rather than holding it for the final report.

A heuristic evaluation is one method: experts inspect an interface against established usability principles, such as clear feedback, consistency and error prevention, and note where it falls short. A UX audit is broader. It includes a heuristic evaluation, then tests those findings against real behaviour in analytics, session recordings and heatmaps, adds accessibility checks, and ranks everything by business impact. A heuristic evaluation tells you what might be a problem. A UX audit tells you which problems are actually costing you conversions.

The terms are often used for the same thing, but they usually differ in depth. A UX review is commonly a lighter expert look at an interface, sometimes a single page or flow, based on the reviewer's experience. A UX audit is more systematic: it covers the main journeys, uses data from analytics and recordings as evidence, checks accessibility and ends in a prioritised fix list. If someone offers you a UX review, ask what evidence it uses and what you get at the end.

Ours has four steps. First we agree what the site or app must get people to do and get access to GA4 and your recording tool, installing Hotjar or Microsoft Clarity if neither is running. Second, we collect evidence: funnels, recordings, heatmaps and walkthroughs of every key journey on desktop and mobile. Third, we run the heuristic and accessibility review and cross-check each finding against the data. Fourth, we rank the issues by impact and effort and walk your team through the fix list.

Read access to GA4 is the most useful, because it shows where people drop out and which devices and sources perform worst. Session recordings and heatmaps from Hotjar or Microsoft Clarity show why. If you have neither installed, we can add Clarity or Hotjar and let it collect real sessions before the review starts. For a logged-in product we also need a test account. You keep ownership of every account and can remove our access as soon as the audit is finished.

AI tools can now produce a quick UX review of a page from a screenshot, and they are useful for catching obvious issues such as low contrast, vague buttons or cluttered layouts. What they cannot do is see your data. They do not know where your visitors actually drop out, what your recordings show or which problem costs the most revenue. They also flag everything with the same urgency. AI can speed up parts of an audit, but the ranking and the judgement have to come from your evidence and an experienced designer.

You decide who fixes what. Your own designers and developers can work through the prioritised list, which is written so they can act on it directly. Or our team, which designs and builds websites and apps, such as the booking-led salon and clinic sites in our work, can carry out the fixes, starting with the costliest problems. Where traffic is high enough, we run A/B tests on the bigger changes to confirm they work, and where it is not, we use proven patterns and watch the analytics after release to check the numbers move the right way.