Honest comparison
VETT
Synthetic-respondent research on named frameworks (Van Westendorp, MaxDiff, NPS), $9 to $1,099 per mission, methodology-first. A directional read in minutes, not a panel study.
Conjointly
Survey research platform that runs studies on real human respondents, strongest in product and pricing research (conjoint, Van Westendorp, Gabor-Granger, monadic concept tests). Free Basic plan; paid plans from $2,895 per team per year, with panel responses bought on top.
Evidence: Conjointly's results come from real people. VETT's are simulated, so for any decision that must rest on measured human responses, Conjointly wins.
Respondent type
ConjointlyVETT
Synthetic personas, AI-calibrated to demographic patterns
Conjointly
Real human respondents from panels (10,000+ predefined panels). Conjointly does not offer synthetic respondents
What the result rests on
ConjointlyVETT
Published, widely used frameworks (Van Westendorp, Gabor-Granger, MaxDiff, NPS); the simulation that produces VETT results has no published validation
Conjointly
The same kinds of framework, answered by real respondents
Methods
ConjointlyVETT
14 research types: concept tests, Van Westendorp and Gabor-Granger pricing, MaxDiff and Kano, NPS, brand lift, creative attention and more; no conjoint
Conjointly
Strongest in product and pricing research: conjoint (discrete choice), Van Westendorp, Gabor-Granger, monadic concept testing
Turnaround
VETTVETT
Minutes; no fieldwork, because respondents are simulated
Conjointly
Days: Conjointly quotes insights "within days" on its predefined panels
Price
TieVETT
$9 for 5 personas, up to $1,099; no subscription
Conjointly
Basic plan at no cost; Professional $2,895 per team per year; Ultimate from $10,000 per year. Panel responses on top, from a $0.55 minimum bid
Credibility with a board or regulator
ConjointlyVETT
Synthetic-respondent simulation; treat as a directional signal
Conjointly
Measured responses from real people
| Dimension | VETT | Conjointly | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent type | Synthetic personas, AI-calibrated to demographic patterns | Real human respondents from panels (10,000+ predefined panels). Conjointly does not offer synthetic respondents | |
| What the result rests on | Published, widely used frameworks (Van Westendorp, Gabor-Granger, MaxDiff, NPS); the simulation that produces VETT results has no published validation | The same kinds of framework, answered by real respondents | |
| Methods | 14 research types: concept tests, Van Westendorp and Gabor-Granger pricing, MaxDiff and Kano, NPS, brand lift, creative attention and more; no conjoint | Strongest in product and pricing research: conjoint (discrete choice), Van Westendorp, Gabor-Granger, monadic concept testing | |
| Turnaround | Minutes; no fieldwork, because respondents are simulated | Days: Conjointly quotes insights "within days" on its predefined panels | |
| Price | $9 for 5 personas, up to $1,099; no subscription | Basic plan at no cost; Professional $2,895 per team per year; Ultimate from $10,000 per year. Panel responses on top, from a $0.55 minimum bid | |
| Credibility with a board or regulator | Synthetic-respondent simulation; treat as a directional signal | Measured responses from real people |
Verdict legend: VETT advantage · tie · Conjointly advantage. One column being "VETT" doesn't mean VETT is better overall - different jobs, different tools.
Pre-launch iteration where you want to test 5-10 versions of a concept before committing to one. Naming and messaging exploration where the question is "which lands at all" not "which lands by 3.2 percentage points." Pricing range-finding before a real-respondent study locks in the curves. Early-stage work with no research budget.
Anything where the answer must come from real people: high-stakes decisions that go to a board, an investor or a regulator. Conjoint analysis, which VETT does not offer. Pricing studies where the optimal price point needs to survive scrutiny.
No. They produce different kinds of evidence. VETT iterates cheaply (from $9 a round, minutes) on simulated respondents; Conjointly runs the study on real people. A sensible sequence is VETT to narrow the question, then a real-respondent study for the decision.
Not the part that produces the numbers. The frameworks VETT uses, such as Van Westendorp (1976), Gabor-Granger (1965) and Net Promoter Score (2003), are published and widely used. The synthetic-respondent simulation that produces VETT results has no published validation study. Conjointly runs the same kinds of framework on real respondents, and has argued publicly that synthetic respondents should not be used at all.
They are shaped differently. VETT charges per mission, $9 to $1,099, with no subscription; the price is set by the number of respondents. Conjointly has a free Basic plan and paid plans from $2,895 per team per year, and panel responses are bought on top, from a $0.55 minimum bid each. Which costs less depends on the study; only Conjointly's side gives you real respondents.
VETT returns a directional read in minutes, because there is no fieldwork: the respondents are simulated. Conjointly quotes insights "within days" on its predefined panels, because real people have to answer.
It depends how the price will be used. VETT runs Van Westendorp and Gabor-Granger on simulated respondents, which is useful for finding a rough price band quickly. Conjointly runs Van Westendorp, Gabor-Granger and conjoint on real respondents. VETT does not offer conjoint. For a price point that has to survive scrutiny, use Conjointly.
Evidence and method depth. Conjointly results come from real people, and it offers conjoint analysis, which VETT does not. VETT results are simulated, so for any decision that must rest on measured human responses, Conjointly is the right tool.
Conjointly sources: