A practical comparison of six tools for creating and delivering psychology experiments, based on their official documentation and published browser-timing research.
The comparison records the authoring interface, participant delivery model, documented workflow, and available evidence. Product claims come from official pages linked below.
DOPSYCHO provides eight reviewed templates, editable task structure, participant preview, recruitment links, and trial-level CSV export. Saving and publishing a study requires an account.
Timing needs vary by paradigm, device, browser, and hardware. Teams should pilot their exact task and record the software version, browser, device checks, exclusions, and export fields.
Capabilities below are summarized from official product documentation. Open each source before making a procurement or study-design decision.
| Tool | Interface | Delivery | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| DOPSYCHO | Structured visual editor and reviewed templates | Browser preview, recruitment link, and CSV export | Public workflow and runnable preview |
| lab.js | Visual builder with optional scripting | Browser studies with local or hosted deployment | Peer-reviewed software and timing publications |
| Gorilla | Drag-and-drop task and questionnaire builders | Hosted studies with recruitment integrations | Official task library and platform documentation |
| Labvanced | Visual no-code experiment builder | Hosted browser studies and multi-user workflows | Official feature and technology documentation |
| PsychoPy / Pavlovia | Desktop Builder GUI with code components | Local lab studies and browser delivery through PsychoJS | Official Builder and online-study documentation |
| PsyToolkit | Browser editor with experiment scripting | Hosted experiments, surveys, and task library | Official documentation and publication list |
Start with delivery needs, coding comfort, timing requirements, recruitment workflow, data export, and the evidence available for the tasks you plan to run.
Visual builders can reduce setup work, but the study still needs piloting, device checks, clear data fields, and review of timing requirements.
This comparison uses public product documentation and published research available on July 26, 2026. It does not report a new head-to-head timing benchmark.