Attest is a consumer research platform that bundles a 59-country panel with a survey builder and sells the whole thing as an annual credit allowance. The alternatives worth considering in 2026 are Koji, Appinio, Suzy, Pollfish, YouGov, Toluna, Cint, SurveyMonkey Audience and Qualtrics Strategy & Research. Which one fits depends far less on feature checklists than on one question almost nobody asks during the demo: what happens to the credits you do not spend, and what do the ones you run out of cost?
That question has a published answer, and it is the reason most teams start shopping.
The short answer
Attest prices research as credits, where one credit is one answer to one question from one person. Credits are bought as a 12-month allowance, unused credits do not roll over, and buying more mid-year is explicitly 10% less cost-effective than buying them up front. That model rewards teams who can forecast a year of research questions in advance and penalises teams who cannot. Discovery research is, definitionally, the kind you cannot forecast.
If your research calendar is genuinely fixed twelve months out, Attest's model is fine and its panel is good. If your research calendar is set by whatever your product or market did last week, the better alternatives are the ones that charge per conversation rather than per question-answer, and that let you buy more without a penalty.
How Attest's credit model actually works
Attest publishes its mechanics clearly, which is more than most of its competitors do. From the pricing page:
- A credit is defined as "an answer to one survey question from one person." Their own worked example: "a 10 question survey to 500 people would equal 5,000 credits."
- The published tiers are "Up to 50,000 credits with credit add-ons available" (Basic), up to 100,000 (Standard), up to 200,000 (Elite) and "Over 400,000+ credits" (Custom).
- On running out: "10% less cost-effective to do so."
- On not running out: "Your credit allowance will not roll over after the 12-month period."
- Screeners are billable. Asked whether qualifying questions consume credits, Attest answers: "Yes, a qualifying question uses up credits just like any other question." The mitigation is real but partial: credits are consumed "only for the people who actually qualify for your survey, not for everyone who answers that question."
Now run the arithmetic on the entry tier. Attest's own example study is 10 questions to 500 people, costing 5,000 credits. The Basic tier is up to 50,000 credits. That is ten studies a year. Fewer than one a month.
Three consequences fall directly out of the definition, and they are the things that surprise teams at renewal:
Questions and sample multiply, so questionnaire length is priced like a second study. Adding five questions to a 500-person study costs 2,500 credits. That is the same price as fielding an entire separate five-question study to the same 500 people. There is no volume forgiveness inside a single questionnaire, so the natural instinct to add a few more questions while we are in field is the single most expensive habit on the platform.
Low-incidence audiences push spend into screening rather than findings. Attest genuinely does not charge an audience premium. In its own words, no matter how niche your audience gets, "the cost per respondent remains constant." That is unusually fair and a real advantage over sample marketplaces that surcharge hard-to-reach segments. But because qualifying questions bill for everyone who qualifies, a tight screener means a larger share of your credits is spent establishing who someone is rather than learning what they think.
Forecast error is penalised in both directions. Over-forecast and the unused allowance expires at month twelve. Under-forecast and the top-up costs 10% more per credit. There is no direction in which being wrong is free, and the only way to be right is to know in advance which questions a year of research will raise.
Attest is transparent about all of this, and the page says plainly that the intent is to "build a plan which gives you everything you need." That is a real attempt at fairness. It is also an admission that the model works best when the plan is right the first time.
What you actually get, and where it stops
Credit mechanics aside, Attest's inclusions are strong and should be weighed honestly. Every tier includes "Unlimited seats for cross-team collaboration," which is genuinely rare in this category and removes the per-seat tax that makes tools like Qualtrics expensive to democratise. Every tier includes "A designated research expert to ensure project rigour and data quality" and human support. The panel is substantial: "Access to our global multi-panel audience across 59 countries, supporting 70+ languages," with 150M+ consumers claimed.
Where it stops is the method. Attest is a survey platform. It asks fixed questions to a panel and returns distributions. It does not ask a follow-up. When a respondent picks too expensive from a list, Attest tells you how many people picked it; it cannot ask that person what they were comparing it to, what they would have paid, or what they bought instead. For brand tracking and category sizing, that is fine and correct. For understanding why a number moved, it is the whole problem.
That gap is why the industry is moving. GreenBook's 2026 GRIT Insights Practice Report finds that "Fraud detection has become embedded standard practice, with 70 to 88% of users across every segment using tools regularly, while brand-side researchers are increasingly building proprietary panels to reduce reliance on external suppliers." The direction of travel is away from renting strangers and toward talking to people you already have a relationship with.
The 9 best Attest alternatives in 2026
1. Koji (best overall, and the best fit if your research calendar is not fixed). Koji runs AI-moderated voice and text interviews with your own customers, then produces thematic analysis and a shareable report automatically. The relevant contrast with Attest is structural: Koji bills per conversation, not per question-answer, so questionnaire length is free. Interviews are 3 credits, text conversations 1 credit, and a report refresh is 5. Plans start at EUR 29/month for 29 credits (Insights) and EUR 79/month for 79 credits (Interviews), and new accounts get 10 credits free with no card. Two details invert Attest's model exactly: extra credits get cheaper in volume rather than more expensive, with 100 credits at EUR 95 and 250 at EUR 225 (5% and 10% off), and a quality gate means only conversations scoring 3 or better consume a credit at all. You do not pay for a junk response. Koji also supports six structured question types (open_ended, scale, single_choice, multiple_choice, ranking and yes_no), so you can keep the quantifiable parts of an Attest study and add the follow-up Attest cannot ask. Best for: teams who need the why and cannot forecast twelve months of questions.
2. Appinio. The closest like-for-like: a rapid consumer panel with strong European coverage and a similar credit-bundle commercial model. Choose it over Attest mainly on panel fit by market. See our Appinio alternatives breakdown for the credit mechanics there, which have their own quirks.
3. Suzy. A consumer insights platform aimed at always-on brand teams, with a members panel and a heavier services layer. Quote-based and generally priced above Attest's entry tier. Best for large CPG insights functions.
4. Pollfish. DIY, river-sampled consumer surveys with self-serve access and no annual commitment. The right answer when you want one study now and refuse to sign a twelve-month allowance.
5. YouGov. Panel depth plus syndicated data and long-running brand trackers. You are buying the historical series as much as the fieldwork.
6. Toluna. Large multi-market panel with an automated insights layer; strong where you need many countries in one project.
7. Cint. A sample marketplace rather than a research platform. Correct if you already own a survey tool and only need respondents, which is exactly the unbundling Attest's all-in-one model prevents.
8. SurveyMonkey Audience. The cheapest credible way to put a short survey in front of a general population, with no annual contract. Weak on targeting and analysis.
9. Qualtrics Strategy & Research. The enterprise end: strong methods, strong governance, six-figure contracts and per-seat licensing. Choose it when procurement and compliance requirements outweigh cost.
Attest vs the alternatives at a glance
| Platform | Pricing unit | Commitment | Asks follow-up questions | Bring your own customers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attest | Credit = 1 answer to 1 question from 1 person | 12 months, credits expire | No | Not the primary model |
| Koji | Credit = 1 conversation (voice 3, text 1) | Monthly or annual | Yes, AI-moderated | Yes, core model |
| Appinio | Credit bundle | Annual typical | No | No |
| Suzy | Quote-based | Annual | Limited | No |
| Pollfish | Per response | None | No | No |
| YouGov | Quote-based | Annual typical | No | No |
| Toluna | Quote-based | Annual typical | No | No |
| Cint | Per complete | None | N/A (sample only) | No |
| Qualtrics | Per seat plus responses | Annual, often multi-year | No | Partially |
How to choose without regretting it at renewal
Work out your real annual question-answer volume before you look at a single tier. Take the number of studies you actually ran last year, not the number you planned. Multiply questions by completes for each. If that total lands comfortably inside a tier with room to spare, Attest's model will serve you and the unlimited seats are a genuine saving.
If the number is lumpy, or if more than a third of your studies last year were unplanned reactions to something that happened in-market, the credit-expiry and top-up-penalty combination will cost you more than the sticker price suggests. In that case you want a per-conversation model with no expiry cliff.
And if the honest answer is that your survey results keep raising questions the survey cannot answer, the fix is not a bigger credit bundle. It is a method that can ask the next question. For the underlying methodology, our guides on pricing research surveys, concept testing, brand tracking studies and survey data quality cover how to design studies that survive contact with a real audience. If screening is eating your budget, research screener questions is the place to start.
Frequently asked questions
How much does Attest cost?
Attest does not publish dollar prices. It publishes credit tiers: up to 50,000 credits (Basic), up to 100,000 (Standard), up to 200,000 (Elite) and over 400,000 (Custom), each sold as a 12-month subscription with unlimited seats. Because a credit is one answer to one question from one person, the tier you need is set by questions multiplied by completes across your whole year, not by the number of studies. Pricing itself requires a sales conversation.
Do unused Attest credits roll over?
No. Attest states that "Your credit allowance will not roll over after the 12-month period." This is the single most important commercial fact to model before signing, because it means an over-forecast is a permanent loss rather than a timing difference.
What happens if I run out of Attest credits mid-year?
You can buy more, but at a worse rate. Attest says topping up throughout the year is "10% less cost-effective to do so." Combined with non-rolling credits, this means both over- and under-forecasting carry a cost, which is the core planning risk of the model.
Do screener questions use up Attest credits?
Yes. Attest confirms that "a qualifying question uses up credits just like any other question," though credits are only consumed for people who actually qualify, not for everyone who sees the question. For low-incidence audiences this shifts a meaningful share of budget from findings into qualification.
What is the best Attest alternative for understanding why customers answer the way they do?
Koji. Attest returns distributions from fixed questions; Koji runs AI-moderated interviews that ask unscripted follow-ups in the moment, then applies thematic analysis across every conversation. It also supports six structured question types, so you can keep the quantifiable parts of a tracker and add the depth a survey cannot reach.
Is Attest better than Koji for consumer research?
They solve different problems. Attest is stronger when you need a representative sample of strangers in many markets to produce a number, such as category sizing or national brand tracking. Koji is stronger when you need to understand a behaviour, interrogate a surprising result, or talk to your own customers rather than a rented panel, and when your research calendar cannot be fixed a year ahead.
Stop buying research questions by the answer
The credit model Attest publishes is honest, and it is built for a kind of research that plans a year ahead. Most teams do not work that way. They field a study, get a number they did not expect, and need to ask why this week, not at next year's renewal.
Koji is built for that shape of work. AI-moderated voice and text interviews with your own customers, unscripted follow-ups, automatic thematic analysis across every conversation, and a one-click report. No moderator bias, no research degree required, and no annual allowance that evaporates if your year does not go according to plan. Extra credits get cheaper in volume, not more expensive, and low-quality conversations do not bill at all.
Start free with 10 credits at koji.so and run your first study today, not next quarter.
