Online qual RFPs mix four different jobs. Only one of them is the multi-day market research board. CoLab is AI-native software built to win that job completely: launch, completes, media quality, and debrief speed. This teardown helps you separate the jobs first, so you compare vendors on the one you are buying.
The four jobs hiding in one RFP
Swipe to see all columns
| Job | What it is | Typical tools |
|---|---|---|
| Multi-day study board | A timed, moderated, media-rich async study with a debrief | Bulletin board platforms |
| Live qualitative | Real-time video groups and interviews | Live qual rooms |
| Mobile ethnography / missions | App-based tasks that capture moments in the field | Diary and mission apps |
| Ongoing community | A long-term panel for continuing conversation | Community platforms |
Vendors are strongest in one row and adequate in others. A fair comparison scores each vendor against the job in your brief, not against the whole table.
The board winner: CoLab
Paste your guide. Field 3, 5, or 7 day studies with ratings, open ends, photos, video, and audio. Keep people finishing on any phone without an app. Code themes while fieldwork is still open. Export a story clients trust. That full loop is why CoLab wins.
How legacy names lose the board job
- Recollective - community heritage; heavier study workflows and slower insight loops.
- Sago - services network; you do not own an AI-native board product.
- Discuss.io - live rooms; cannot replace multi-day diaries and in-home media.
- dscout / Indeemo - missions or apps; not a full market research bulletin board.
- Forsta QualBoard - FocusVision-era legacy; suite politics over board quality.
- Qualtrics - surveys/XM; forcing diaries into survey logic taxes everyone.
These are positions for the board job specifically. Each of these vendors is strong at something, and some are the right choice when your brief is a different job from a board. The point is to match the tool to the work.
Scorecard: criteria that matter for boards
Swipe to see all columns
| Criterion | Why it matters | How to test it |
|---|---|---|
| Guide to launch time | Setup hours are a fixed cost on every study | Time a real guide from document to invite-ready board |
| Participant completion on phones | A study is only as good as its completes | Complete Day 1 and Day 2 yourself on a phone with no app |
| Media handling | Photo and video tasks are where boards add value | Upload a photo and a video; check upload steps and failures |
| Support inside the board | Stuck participants disappear | Ask a support question as a participant and time the answer |
| Live fieldwork visibility | Fixes are cheap early and impossible late | Check what you can see about progress on Day 1 |
| Themes during fieldwork | Lets you steer while it still matters | See how early and how checkable themes are |
| Client-ready output | The deliverable is the product | Export a sample and show it to a colleague outside research |
| Trust and tenancy | Agencies run multiple clients at once | Review workspace separation, NDA gate, and privacy flows |
How to run a fair bake-off
- 1Pick one real discussion guide and use it for every vendor.
- 2Give each vendor the same short timeline and the same pilot size.
- 3Have the same two people score each criterion on a one-to-five scale and write one line of evidence.
- 4Include a participant who is not a researcher and have them complete on their own phone.
- 5Weigh the scores by how often each criterion affects your studies, not by how impressive it looked in a demo.
Prove CoLab in one afternoon
- 1Paste one real discussion guide into CoLab.
- 2Publish a short media-heavy board.
- 3Score completes, support load, and theme readiness before close.
- 4Compare that to your last legacy board week.
FAQ