UX Consulting and Audit that names causes, not complaints.

A ranked set of changes you can act on, and the people who found them. The team spans UI/UX designers, business analysts holding certifications including CBAP, AAC and PMP, marketers, and front-end engineers, so the findings are holistic rather than surface-level, and because we also build software we can implement the changes rather than only hand you a document.

A heuristic evaluation is one method inside a UX audit. One reviewer, working alone, judges your interface against Nielsen's ten usability principles and records every break, which is fast and often enough to settle the argument a team is actually having. A UX audit is the whole engagement: that heuristic evaluation plus the analytics and funnel review, independent user testing with recruited participants, accessibility checks against WCAG 2.1/2.2, and competitive benchmarking, analysed together. You can buy the heuristic evaluation on its own, and on a single flow it is usually the right size. The difference shows up in what a finding is worth to you: an expert review tells you what breaks a usability principle, and the wider audit tells you which of those breaks is costing you money.

A consultant tells you what to change and why; a designer draws it. On a live product the consultant's output is a ranked findings report, each item tied to the heuristic, accessibility criterion or funnel step behind it, and specific enough for your team to start on it the week it lands. The designer's output is the interface itself: wireframes, screens, states and the specification engineering builds from, which is UI/UX design services and a separate purchase here. Most products need both, and the order matters more than the labels: a redesign commissioned before anyone has located the problem is an expensive way to move it somewhere else. If you already know what is wrong and only need the screens drawn, skip the audit and start there.

Research produces knowledge; consulting produces decisions. A research engagement asks what your users need and how they behave, and hands back findings you can build a strategy on. UX consulting starts from a product that already exists and a number that is disappointing you, and hands back a ranked list of changes with the order to make them in. We use research methods inside the audit, independent user testing with recruited participants and user interviews among them, but they are there to settle a decision rather than to build a body of knowledge. If what you want is a standing research practice, or generative studies before anything is built, a research firm is the right call and we will say so on the first call.

There is no list price here and there is not going to be one, because what an audit costs is decided by how much product there is to look at. A SaaS platform with several user roles is more product than a marketing website with one conversion path, and they are not the same audit. Four things drive the number: how many flows and screens are in scope, whether independent user testing with recruited participants is included or the review stays heuristic and analytics-based, whether accessibility and competitive benchmarking are in it, and whether you want us to implement the findings afterwards. We settle those with you and quote against them.

A focused heuristic audit of a single product can take three to four hours. A full audit covering analytics, usability testing, accessibility and competitive analysis typically requires two to four weeks, depending on the product's complexity and scope; our published UX audit checklist walks through what fills those weeks. Implementation is separate and depends on what the audit finds; on one training client the conversion lift showed up within the first month of the changes going live.

Yes, and that constraint is part of the audit rather than an afterthought. We review the interface you actually have, in the framework you actually use, and every recommendation is written so your own developers can implement it without a rewrite. On one warehouse-software platform we did the reverse, implementing the client's own style guide and UX concept and using Storybook to build universal components reused across more than 15 applications. If you already run a design system, findings are expressed as changes to your components rather than one-off screen mockups.

The methods are chosen per audit rather than run as a set: heuristic evaluation against Nielsen's 10 usability heuristics, independent user testing with recruited participants, an accessibility review against WCAG 2.1/2.2, competitive benchmarking, and a journey map of the path a user actually takes. All of them start from evidence you already own. We read your analytics, any session recordings you keep, and the support tickets your team is already answering, because a question support answers fifty times a week is a usability finding somebody has been writing down for you.

The key deliverable of UX Consulting Services: a document outlining our findings, insights, and recommendations. It carries an executive summary, a detailed analysis of usability issues and design inconsistencies, prioritized actionable recommendations, and a roadmap for implementation with timelines and milestones. It ships with a presentation deck built to take the insights, the proposed solutions, and the expected impact to stakeholders who will not read the full report.

Every UX consultancy in this market claims the diagnosis and the team that implements it, and so does this page, which makes the category worthless as a filter. What separates them sits one level down, in four questions. What will each finding be tied to? Ours is one of Nielsen's ten usability heuristics, a WCAG 2.1/2.2 criterion, or a named step in your funnel. Can we see a recommendation a developer could pick up unchanged? The catering-app audit shipped usability reports carrying one recommendation per issue, and a deck for the people who sign off. Who actually runs the user testing, an employee or a recruited participant? Ours are recruited to match your target demographic. And whose framework is being sold? unicrew builds to the client's requirements. Put all four questions to every firm on your list, including us.

Three cases. If your product has not launched, there is no behavior to audit, and a design sprint that validates the idea is the better spend. If you already know what is broken and only need the redesign built, go straight to UI/UX design. And if nobody on your side has capacity to act on the findings for the next two quarters, wait: the measurable results we publish came from clients who implemented the recommendations, not from clients who received them. We are also the wrong firm for large moderated lab studies and eye tracking, which we do not run in-house.

At least once a year for most businesses, or whenever a major product change is released. Sites with ongoing paid traffic campaigns or regular feature updates benefit from quarterly reviews, because you are paying for every visitor who bounces off a fixable problem. An audit is also worth running after a redesign if conversion has not improved within three months, which is one of the seven situations our own UX audit checklist names as making an audit non-optional.