Where Corexi and Hotjar differ
Both help teams build better experiences — from different angles. Here's an honest look at what Hotjar does well and where Corexi takes a different path.
What Hotjar is great at
Hotjar (now part of Contentsquare) is excellent at qualitative insight — heatmaps, session recordings, surveys and frustration signals that show you how people behave.
Where Corexi takes a different path
Diagnosis, not just observation
Corexi tells you why an issue costs a conversion and ships the fix, not just what happened.
One score across the product
Instead of reviewing data point by point, get a UX Score with prioritized, evidence-backed findings across 9 categories.
It's a signal we ingest
Corexi connects to Microsoft Clarity and GA4 as behavioral inputs, so qualitative data becomes part of the diagnosis.
Fix-ready code + accessibility
Every finding ships code; WCAG is axe-core verified; neurodiversity is scored as a first-class dimension.
Side by side
Which should you choose?
You want rich qualitative context — to watch real sessions and run on-site surveys.
You want an objective score, prioritized findings and the code to fix them.
Better together. Keep Hotjar for qualitative depth; feed its behavioral signals into Corexi for scored diagnosis and fixes.
See what your UX is costing you.
Find the friction costing you conversions. Get fix-ready code.