Your product has friction you can't see.
A UX audit finds it before it costs you more.

A UX audit is a structured, evidence-based evaluation of how users experience your product. It identifies where friction, confusion, or inefficiency is preventing adoption, conversion, or retention, and it tells you which of those problems are worth fixing first. It matters because most products do not fail on technology. They fail because nobody validated the experience before shipping, and by the time the metrics show it, the cost of fixing it has compounded. A UX audit is not a critique or a checklist exercise. It is a decision-making tool. The point is to know what to fix, what to leave alone, and where investment will return the most, before you commit engineering time to a redesign.

We will audit one major flow for free to identify 3 friction points to fix right away.   A more comprehensive audit for one major flow will cost $499.  For a full audit of your entire product (in addition to your product team and design operations workflow), pricing depends on a few factors such as, how many user flows are in scope, how much primary research is required, how complex the product is and the composition of your team. What moves the number: The number of distinct user types. Auditing one persona is not the same problem as auditing an admin, an analyst, and an auditor. Whether user interviews are included, and whether you can provide access to users or we recruit them. Whether you already have behavioral analytics in place. If the data exists, we move faster. Accessibility scope. A WCAG conformance review adds time. We scope and price every engagement before work starts.  If you want to see how we work before committing to anything, we will review one key user flow and identify the top friction points at no cost.

This is the most common question we get, and the answer usually depends on what you already know. You need a UX audit if you can see that something is wrong but cannot explain why. Metrics have plateaued, users are dropping off, feedback says "confusing" without specifics. An audit tells you what is actually broken and what to fix first. You need user research if you do not yet know who your users are or what they are trying to do. Research answers questions about people. An audit answers questions about your product. You need a redesign if you already have evidence about what is broken and you have decided to act on it. If you do not have that evidence, a redesign is an expensive guess. Most teams who come to us thinking they need a redesign actually need the audit first. It costs less, takes weeks instead of months, and it frequently reveals that the problem is contained to two or three flows rather than the whole product.

UX audits are most valuable at inflection points, when a decision is coming and the cost of getting it wrong is real. That usually means one of these is true: Conversion, activation, or retention has plateaued or declined Users are dropping off and your analytics show where but not why Feedback describes the product as confusing or clunky without pointing at a cause A redesign is being discussed and it feels risky without evidence Accessibility or consistency issues are becoming expensive Competitors are outperforming you despite comparable features The short version: if confidence in your product experience is eroding, an audit is the fastest way to get it back. To get started we need access to your product, whatever behavioral analytics you have (Google Analytics, Mixpanel, Hotjar, FullStory), and alignment on which flows concern you most. We handle everything else.

A Wandr UX audit includes: Behavioral and funnel analysis User interviews to surface the reasoning behind the behavior Heuristic evaluation by senior practitioners Accessibility assessment Competitive benchmarking Annotated screen-level findings with a prioritized roadmap It does not include: Full redesigns or visual rebrands (although we may produce mockups) Feature ideation unrelated to identified UX issues Subjective opinions without supporting evidence That last exclusion is deliberate. Anyone can tell you what they would have done differently. The value is in findings you can defend to a stakeholder who disagrees.

You receive an implementation-ready audit package: Prioritized UX recommendations, each tied to a business metric Annotated screen markups showing exactly where the problems are A sprint-based improvement roadmap your team can pick up directly A PDF summary and a live stakeholder walkthrough The walkthrough matters more than people expect. A document gets skimmed and shelved. A working session gets your product, engineering, and leadership aligned on the same priorities in one hour. Every finding is connected to a measurable impact (conversion, activation, retention, or support load) and prioritized by risk and effort rather than a generic severity score. So the roadmap is sequenced by what will move the number, not by what is easiest to describe. After delivery you have three options: your team implements it, we implement it with you, or we embed designers into your team to work through the roadmap. Most clients start with the first and come back for the third once the roadmap proves out. We back the audit with a guarantee. If you do not walk away with actionable clarity, we keep working until you do.

Our free audit takes 2 business day turnaround, whereas our $499 audit takes 5 business days.   A more comprehensive customized audit, typically runs between two and eight weeks. A focused audit of a single critical flow can be done in two to three weeks. A comprehensive audit of a complex enterprise product with multiple user types usually runs six to twelve weeks. The variable is research depth, not product size. We give you a firm timeline during scoping, before the engagement starts.

A heuristic evaluation is expert opinion. A senior practitioner reviews your interface against established usability principles and documents where it deviates. It is useful, fast, and cheap, and it has a real limit: it tells you what an expert thinks, not what your users do. A Wandr UX audit includes heuristic evaluation as one input among several. We combine it with behavioral data, real user interviews, accessibility assessment, and competitive benchmarking. Findings are validated against what users actually do rather than what a principle predicts they should do. The practical difference shows up in prioritization. A heuristic review returns a list of violations ranked by severity. An audit returns a list of problems ranked by business impact, which is the ranking that survives contact with a roadmap discussion.

Partly, and it depends on what you need. AI tools are genuinely good at the mechanical layer. Automated heuristic checks, WCAG conformance scanning, and screenshot analysis will catch contrast failures, missing labels, inconsistent spacing, and pattern deviations faster and cheaper than a person will. If that is what you need, use them. What they cannot do is explain why users behave the way they do. An AI tool can tell you a form has too many fields. It cannot tell you that your users abandon that form because the value of the product is not visible until after they complete it, which is the actual problem and requires a different fix entirely. They also cannot prioritize against your business. Ranking findings by impact requires knowing what your revenue depends on, which flows carry the most weight, and what your engineering team can realistically ship this quarter. That context does not come from a screenshot. Our honest recommendation: run the automated tools first. They are cheap and they will clear the obvious issues. Bring in an audit when the obvious issues are fixed and the metrics still have not moved.

Internal teams know the product deeply, which is valuable, and they have blind spots that come from the same source. It is genuinely difficult to see friction in a flow you designed and have used a thousand times. An external audit brings: Objective perspective that can challenge assumptions your team stopped questioning Pattern recognition from auditing many products rather than one Speed, without pulling your team off delivery Credibility that helps align stakeholders and shorten internal debate That last one is underrated. Most teams already suspect what is broken. What they lack is evidence a skeptical executive will accept. An external audit converts an internal opinion into a defensible finding. The goal is not to replace your team. It is to give them evidence.