Is Fieldbase a Qualtrics alternative?

Yes — Fieldbase targets the same market research use cases as Qualtrics (CBC, MaxDiff, grids, quotas, SPSS export) but with a code-first authoring surface. If your team writes survey logic in YAML or wishes it could, Fieldbase is a direct alternative. If your team prefers drag-and-drop with no code, Qualtrics is a better fit.

Can Fieldbase export to the same formats as Qualtrics?

Yes — Fieldbase exports to SPSS (.sav or .dat+.sps syntax-file pair), CSV, Excel, and fixed-width ASCII. Companion long CSVs ship for CBC and MaxDiff (cbc_long, maxdiff_long) with design-file companions for Sawtooth/R re-estimation.

Does Fieldbase support CBC and MaxDiff like Qualtrics?

Yes — CBC (choice-based conjoint) and MaxDiff are first-class. Fieldbase runs aggregate MNL logit part-worths in-app, a live share-of-preference simulator, and ships a Design Test (Design Health + Precision scorecards with D-efficiency and implied-N) so you know the design will produce usable utilities before fielding.

How is Fieldbase priced vs Qualtrics?

Fieldbase is in early access and currently free for founding market research teams. Qualtrics is enterprise-priced with per-seat and per-response fees that typically run into five or six figures annually.

← Back to Fieldbase Compare · Qualtrics alternative

A code-first alternative
to Qualtrics.

Qualtrics is the drag-and-drop standard. Fieldbase gives you the same depth (CBC, MaxDiff, quotas, SPSS export) with an in-platform code editor instead of a drag-and-drop canvas — plus AI that drafts the survey from a Word or PDF spec.

Talk to us See the platform →

What Qualtrics does well

A broad drag-and-drop surface that covers nearly every survey pattern without typing. Massive feature set (XM, CX, EX suites). Enterprise sales, procurement, and compliance machine. If your team is non-technical or your company has already standardised on Qualtrics XM, that's a real moat.

Where Fieldbase differs

Code-first authoring in the browser. Surveys are YAML in - qid blocks with Python-like - script blocks for logic. You edit, save, and ship them from the Fieldbase editor — no file plumbing, no separate IDE. Readable, greppable, AI-assistable. See scripting →
AI drafts the code from a spec. Upload a questionnaire document (Word, PDF); the AI writes the survey, you review and accept. Days of programming compress into hours.
AI chat for live edits. Ask for changes in plain English — "make Q7 required if S2 is Male" — the AI proposes the edit, you accept. Works in any language your team speaks.
Export surface built for the analyst. SPSS (.sav and .dat+.sps pair), CSV with camelCase + BOM, Excel with proper type hints, fixed-width ASCII. Companion long CSVs for CBC/MaxDiff ship in the same pack. See export →
Pre-field Design Test for CBC/MaxDiff. Design Health and Precision scorecards with D-efficiency and implied-N — know the design will produce usable utilities before you field. See choice modeling →
Quotas that hold under concurrency. Real database locks on every completion — not a client-side counter. The Survey Simulator fires parallel completes against the actual production path to verify. See simulator →
Transparent, scoped pricing. In early access, free for founding teams. No per-response fees, no enterprise multi-year contracts. See pricing →

Side-by-side

	Fieldbase	Qualtrics
Authoring
Authoring surface	In-platform code editor (YAML) + Python-like `- script` blocks	Drag-and-drop canvas with menu-driven logic
AI drafts the survey from a spec document	Yes — upload a Word or PDF spec, AI writes the survey	No — some AI-assisted question suggestions, not spec-to-survey
AI chat for live edits (any language)	Yes — "make Q7 required if S2 is Male" in any language	Limited — rule-based builders, not conversational edits
Learning curve for a programmer	Hours — the DSL is YAML + Python-like syntax	Days — different model (menus, flow blocks, embedded JS)
Learning curve for a non-programmer	Steeper — code-first; AI chat helps	Shallow — drag-and-drop is the strength here
Advanced research methods
CBC (choice, rating, ranking)	First-class, three response modes supported	Available in Conjoint add-on
MaxDiff + TURF analysis	First-class; TURF built in	Available in Conjoint add-on
Pre-field Design Test (D-efficiency, implied-N)	Yes — Design Health + Precision scorecards in the editor	No equivalent integrated workflow
In-app CBC utilities + share simulator	Aggregate MNL part-worths + live share-of-preference	Export-only (Sawtooth / R / other)
Card sort (open/closed/hybrid)	Yes — first-class question type	Add-on / third-party integration
Qualitative annotation (image heatmap, text intensity, video dial)	First-class with in-app viewer	Limited; image heatmap only
Fieldwork
Quota precision under concurrent load	Row-level locks per completion — exact	Soft-count buffering — occasional over-quota reported
Real-respondent survey simulator	Fires parallel completes through the production path	Preview / test-respondent flows (not concurrency testing)
Live-fielding quota edits	Edit in place without a republish	Supported with limitations
Per-language fielding (launch one language at a time)	Yes — Test/Live/Paused/Closed per language	Supported via translation + distribution workflow
Data & export
SPSS export	.sav binary + .dat/.sps syntax pair, PSPP-verified	.sav
Fixed-width ASCII export	Yes — datamap-driven	No
CBC / MaxDiff long-form companion CSVs	Yes — `cbc_long`, `maxdiff_long`, design file, Design Health report in one pack	Long form via custom export or external processing
Partial exports (date / row count / variable filter)	Stackable filters at export time — no new variable needed	Date filter + response-level filter via workflow
Datamap Designer (grid + text editor, templates)	Yes — grid or text view, template per tracker	Variable manager, no equivalent template layer
Mid-field data import (update columns on existing respondents)	Yes — by `respondentId`, column-scoped	Supported with limitations
Test / Live environment on same route (`?env=`)	Byte-identical export for shared columns	Separate test respondent workflow
Pricing & vendor
Pricing model	Free in early access; transparent going forward	Enterprise contracts — per-seat + per-response + modules
Starting cost (typical mid-size team)	$0 (early access)	Five to six figures / year
Procurement + legal	Lightweight — direct contact	Full enterprise procurement cycle
Best fit	Teams with a programmer, or ones who'd rather have one	Teams on drag-and-drop with enterprise XM/CX needs

When Qualtrics is still the right call

Your organisation has standardised on Qualtrics XM across multiple departments.
Your team has no technical users and doesn't want any.
You need the broader XM / CX / EX suite, not just the research tool.
You need enterprise procurement coverage (SOC 2 Type II, HIPAA BAA, FedRAMP) today.

FAQ

Is Fieldbase actually a Qualtrics alternative?

Yes — for the research use cases (CBC, MaxDiff, grids, quotas, SPSS export). We don't try to replace the XM/CX/EX suites.

Can my research team migrate from Qualtrics?

Email [email protected] — we'll walk you through what a migration looks like for your tracker (we can usually import a wave's data to validate column parity before you cut over).

Does Fieldbase handle CBC conjoint like Qualtrics does?

Yes — upload a Sawtooth-format design or a CSV of concept matrices, reference it with design: project://your_design_v2, and run aggregate MNL in-app. See choice modeling for the Design Test workflow.