The Universe Website Builder is a creative tool with a mix of strengths and limitations. Testers find it suitable for fun and quirky projects that align with social media trends. However, the page editor’s usability poses challenges, affecting basic operations like text editing and block management.
FREE | PRO – $5.33 – 9.99/MONTH
A diverse group of testers were asked to build a website, from start to finish, to assess the strengths and weaknesses of Universe from different perspectives:
Email, Single Sign On (Google, Apple, ETC)
Demo, Free Trial
The overall ease of use receives moderate to slightly above-average ratings, culminating in an average score of 65%. Testers appreciated the app’s potential, though they found room for improvement in user-friendliness.
For a mobile website building app to be considered easy to use, it should have an intuitive and user-friendly interface that is easy to navigate with touch controls. The app should provide clear and concise instructions on how to use its various features and tools, and it should allow users to easily preview their website and make changes on the go.
The intuitiveness/ease of use varied among testers. Some found the interface relatively intuitive, with clear icons and labels, resulting in a moderate rating. However, others rated it slightly higher, appreciating the app’s navigational simplicity.
The learning curve for the app seems to be steeper, as indicated by consistently low ratings. Testers noted that while it might take time to understand the app’s mechanics, it becomes manageable once you grasp its intricacies.
Testers generally found the app efficient for completing tasks, awarding it a solid rating in this category. An AI assistant named GUS has been introduced, streamlining processes and reducing the number of steps required.
Pretty easy, and there’s now an AI assistant called GUS which can do a lot of the work for you
A mobile website building app that is clear should be easy to navigate, with clear and concise labels for all buttons and menus. The app should provide intuitive and logical workflows, so that users can easily find the features they need and accomplish their goals without confusion or frustration.
The clarity of the app received moderate scores. Testers acknowledged the presence of instructions and tooltips, though opinions were mixed regarding the effectiveness of these guidance features.
The visual hierarchy of the app’s interface is a point of contention. While those testers that utilized GUS (Generative Universe Sites), an AI-powered website designer, found it easier due to predefined structures, but those creating from scratch struggled to make sense of the blank canvas, resulting in lower ratings.
Consistency is a strong suit of the app, earning it consistently high ratings. Testers appreciated the uniform design and behavior across different aspects of the app.
A mobile website building app that is lightweight should load quickly and operate smoothly, with minimal lag or delays.
Overall, our testers rated Universe as a versatile website design app, noting that it offers a good variety of templates and impressive design flexibility. However, its aesthetic appeal may vary depending on the users design skills and the assistance they receive from the app’s AI features. Our conclusion is that it is a solid choice for those who are comfortable with design or have access to graphic design support but might be less user-friendly for individuals without prior design experience.
When it comes to template variety, Universe performed well, with testers giving it a solid rating. This indicates that the app offers a range of high-quality, customizable templates suitable for different industries and use cases.
Aesthetic appeal is a bit of a hit-or-miss with Universe. While one tester rated it highly, appreciating its visually appealing and professional-looking designs following modern trends, another tester was less impressed. Another tester’s comments highlights that producing a beautiful site might require some graphic design skills or assistance from the app’s AI “GUS,” and many users may find this challenging.
The app’s design flexibility received positive feedback, with testers awarding high ratings. Testers commented that the app allows extensive customization of colors, fonts, and other design elements, making it adaptable to user preferences and brand identities. The app’s high level of flexibility was widely appreciated.
Ethics/Focus refers to the principles and considerations that guide the development and usage of the application, ensuring responsible and user-centric practices. It involves adopting ethical standards, maintaining user privacy and security, and prioritizing user experience.
The app’s primary focus on selling products and services consistently receives moderate ratings from testers, who note that it sometimes overshadows other aspects of the user experience, like education and support. Concerns about this commercial focus also lead to lower ratings in the education category, with testers highlighting a lack of balance between the app’s commercial orientation and its value to users. Additionally, the app’s commitment to content quality generates mixed opinions among testers, as some question whether it truly prioritizes content quality over additional features.
Concerns regarding the app’s primary focus on selling products and services are consistently reflected in the testers moderate ratings. Testers observed that the app leaned heavily toward commercial activities, occasionally overshadowing of other aspects of the user experience, such as education and support.
Concerns about the app’s focus on selling products and services are reflected in the testers lower ratings. Our testers noted the lack of a balance between the app’s commercial orientation and its value to users.
The app’s commitment to content quality garners moderate to low ratings. Our testers expressed divided opinions on whether the app truly prioritizes content quality over add-ons and features.
Our testers rated the Universe Website Builder as a mixed experience, highlighting its strengths in workflow efficiency, design flexibility, and consistency. However, they noted the challenges related to the learning curve, visual hierarchy, and accessibility are points of consideration for potential users.
In terms of features and functionality, the app receives above-average ratings, culminating in an average score of 77%. Testers appreciated the range of tools and customization options available, although some limitations and challenges are acknowledged, particularly in the realm of language options and integrations.
Features refer to the tools, functionality, and capabilities that each app provides for users to build and customize a professional-looking website. Because our review is exclusively of the mobile app, and not of the browser-based builder, a key metric is how much of the website builder’s feature-set is available in the app.
The app’s functionality is highly praised, with testers appreciating the comprehensive set of tools available even in the free version. Extensibility ratings varied, with improved features in the paid version receiving higher scores.
The app’s functionality is well-regarded, earning consistently high ratings. Testers appreciate the comprehensive set of tools available for creating, editing, and managing websites, even in the free version. Text editing, image uploading, and form creation are highlighted as particularly impressive features.
The app’s extensibility received varying ratings. Some testers rated it moderately, expressing a desire for more features like customizable menus in the free version. However, testers who explored the upgraded version gave it higher scores, citing the apps ability to enhance functionality with ecommerce capabilities and diverse menu styles.
Testers appreciated the app’s collaboration options, rating it consistently high. *Paid versions of the app offer team collaboration features, facilitating multiple user access and seamless teamwork.
Customization refers to the level of options and flexibility that the app provides for designing a website.
Customizability garnered positive yet slightly mixed reviews. While testers highlighted the ability to control layout and design elements, some noted challenges in maintaining an organized layout.
The app offers options for customizing the layout of pages, allowing users to add, remove, or rearrange sections. Some testers rated this aspect highly, indicating a positive experience with layout control. However, there were also some lower ratings mixed in, accompanied by feedback that while “customization is possible, it might not always be organized.”
The app’s design control capabilities received consistently high ratings. Testers noted that the app allows for the modification of design elements like colors, fonts, and images, enabling users to create a unique look and feel for their websites. Some limitations of desktop presentation, such as content width, were acknowledged, but overall, our testers found the design control quite versatile.
Testers appreciated the app’s feature control options, rating it consistently high. The app offers the ability to customize various features such as navigation menus, forms, and galleries, allowing users to tailor these components to match their specific requirements. The availability of these options is emphasized, particularly in the paid versions of the app
Integration options refer to the ability of the app to connect and integrate with external services, platforms, or tools to enhance the functionality and capabilities of the website being built.
The app’s integration capabilities received moderate ratings. Our testers noted that while third-party integrations with tools like social media platforms and analytics tools are supported, some limitations are present, especially in terms of the availability of these features in the paid versions.
Testers rated the seamless connections between integrations moderately high. While there is a level of ease in setting up integrations, some testers reported potential conflicts or issues, particularly in the free version.
The app does not offer multiple language options for its user interface (UI) or built-in support for multi-language functionality.
Our testers generally found the app’s features and functionality to be robust and versatile, contributing to an average score of 77%. The app offers a comprehensive set of tools for creating, editing, and managing websites, with a variety of customization options and integrations available. While some testers encountered limitations or challenges in certain areas, the overall experience with the app’s features and functionality is largely satisfactory.
Overall, Universe manages to maintain a respectable SEO score, averaging at 70%. While it has strengths in URL customization and image compression, there’s room for improvement in areas such as mobile optimization and website performance.
SEO (Search Engine Optimization) abilities refer to the app’s ability to help users optimize their website for search engines, such as Google and Bing. By including these SEO features, a mobile website building app can help users improve the visibility and ranking of their website in search engine results, potentially driving more traffic and engagement to their website.
Universe seems to possess decent SEO abilities, scoring well on Google’s Best Practices and SEO tests. However, it appears that basic SEO features may not be their top priority. Out Testers found the limited FAQs on this subject somewhat lacking.
Testers find the app’s metadata customization capabilities generally satisfactory. They rated it moderately high, indicating that while basic SEO features are present, they might not be prioritized highly. The app received praise for performing well on Google’s Best Practices and SEO tests, but some testers noted that resources on the topic are somewhat limited.
The app’s URL customization feature is highly regarded, receiving top ratings. Testers appreciated the ability to create human-readable page names, enhancing the overall user experience and SEO performance.
Mobile optimization is a strong point for Universe, with sites loading correctly on mobile devices. However, speed could be improved, as mobile load times seem to lag behind.
By prioritizing performance and speed, a mobile website should provide users with a fast and responsive experience, enabling them to quickly and efficiently browse websites from their mobile device. The second part of this section pertains to the performance and speed of the websites created by the app.
Universe’s website performance garnered mixed reviews. While it performed decently on desktops, mobile load times leave room for improvement. Testers have reported slower mobile website speeds.
Certain testers provided favorable ratings for the website’s load times, noting that the published website loads swiftly and operates effectively on both desktop and mobile devices. Nevertheless, there were also contrasting lower ratings, implying that some testers encountered slower load times and potential performance issues on both desktop and mobile platforms. Overall, it appears that the app’s load times have had differing effects on testers, with some finding it acceptable and others facing issues that impact their browsing experience.
Universe offers image optimization, yet somehow, it doesn’t translate into lightning-fast load times. Surprisingly, desktop performance outshines mobile.
Universe is a platform with potential, offering a mixed bag of SEO features and performance. Depending on your specific needs and priorities, it may be worth exploring, especially if you require strong URL customization and image optimization. However, users should be aware of potential mobile performance issues and limited SEO documentation.
Testers overall assessment of the app’s performance and reliability results in an average rating of 72%. While the app generally performs well and provides stable experiences, some testers encountered minor issues related to reactivity, user guidance, and certain design aspects.
A mobile website building app that is lightweight should load quickly and operate smoothly, with minimal lag or delays
The app’s performance is perceived positively by most testers, although there were occasional instances of less optimal performance.
Testers generally found the app stable. However, one testers noted that it felt “stale” compared to other apps, possibly due to its initial design for iPhones. Regardless, our testers didn’t report crashes or significant lag even with complex layouts.
The app’s reactivity receives varying ratings. Testers rate it highly for effectiveness and responsiveness. However, testers also noted a slight delay, resulting in a lower rating. The app’s ability to promptly respond to user actions is generally good but might experience minor latency.
A mobile website building app with a high chance of completion should provide users with the tools and features they need to easily create a website that meets their needs
Testers had varying levels of confidence in completing their website-building tasks using the only the app. Ratings were mixed.
User guidance is rated somewhat lower, with testers giving it a generally low scores. While guidance during the building process is limited, testers found the FAQs decent and support easily accessible.
Quality assurance received positive ratings. Testers appreciate the options for previewing and testing websites on different devices and browsers before publishing.
Our testers generally found the app responsive, with a rating of 80%. This indicates that the app promptly responds to user actions, ensuring a smooth and uninterrupted user experience with minimal latency or delays. However, there’s also a slightly lower rating of 66%, suggesting that some testers encountered occasional responsiveness issues, leading to a slightly less fluid experience at times. Overall, the app’s responsiveness seems to be satisfactory for most testers, with some exceptions.
The app’s prioritization of mobile-friendly designs received consistently good ratings. Testers found that the app ensures a good user experience on smaller screens.
Our Testers appreciated the mobile-first approach and adaptive layouts, rating it highly. However, it was noted that layouts struggle to scale to desktops and might have limitations.
The app’s touch-friendly interface received generally high ratings. While drag-and-drop and adding blocks are intuitive, resizing elements on touch devices can be challenging and less obvious.
Overall, testers had a mixed perception of the app’s performance and reliability. The ratings indicate that while many testers found the app’s performance and reliability satisfactory, there are also some who had encountered issues that affected their experience. The average rating of 72% suggests that there is room for improvement in certain aspects of performance and reliability to ensure a more consistent and reliable user experience.
he testers’ overall experience with support and documentation yielded an average rating of 55%. While some testers found the support channels, documentation, and community to be helpful, others faced difficulties and expressed dissatisfaction with the support they received.
Testers had different experiences with customer support. Some gave it a thumbs up, indicating it was helpful and effective. On the flip side, others gave it a lower rating, suggesting they weren’t too thrilled with the support they received. It seems like the quality of customer support might not be consistent and could depend on how a specific user interacts with it.
The app provides users with various support options to pick from, including email and an interactive FAQ section. Additionally, some testers had the option of using live chat and a chatbot for assistance.
Testers, on the whole, were satisfied with the documentation, giving it high ratings. The app offers extensive and easily accessible documentation, which includes tutorials, FAQs, and troubleshooting guides. Nevertheless, a few testers did point out limitations or gaps in the available documentation.
The app hosts an active user community with diverse experiences. While some testers gave the community a positive score, suggesting it’s a valuable space for sharing knowledge and advice, others rated it quite low. This indicates that the community may not consistently deliver the expected level of engagement and support.
The app’s transparency about collecting personal data receives a “No” response. The options provided for data privacy does not include the ability to unpublish and close an account.
The average rating of 55% suggests a mixed experience with the app’s support and documentation. Testers seem to have encountered both positive and negative experiences when seeking support and utilizing the available documentation resources.
Our testers overall assessment of the app’s pricing and value for money results in an average rating of 70%. While some testers found the app’s pricing tiers flexible and cost-effective, there were also varying opinions about the transparency of the pricing structure and the overall value provided by the app.
There seems to be Free, Domain+, and Pro paid options. But the only real paid plan is Pro I think.
Testers generally found the app’s pricing tiers to be flexible and diverse. This suggests that the app offers a range of pricing options that cater to various user needs, from free plans to premium plans with additional features. However, some testers noted limitations in the available pricing tiers. It’s mentioned that while there might be multiple pricing tiers, the true paid option might be limited to the “Pro” plan.
Some testers have given it a favorable rating, implying that the app offers excellent value for the features and functionality it provides. On the other hand, a different group of testers has rated it slightly lower, indicating that, despite its competitive pricing, there exists potential for improvement in terms of delivering better value for the money invested.
Transparency in communicating the pricing structure appears to be an area of contention.
The app’s pricing and value receive mixed reviews from testers. While some rate it positively, finding the pricing tiers flexible and the app cost-effective, others hold differing opinions. Some testers have concerns about the transparency of the pricing structure and the overall value they get for their money. As a result, the pricing and value aspect of the app receives an overall average score of 70%.
Testers’ combined overall score for the app is 68%, reflecting the varied experiences and opinions expressed throughout the review. While some aspects of the app receive positive ratings, there are notable concerns that impact the overall impression and score.
The overall impression of the Universe Website Builder is a mixed one. While some testers express frustration with certain aspects of the app, particularly the page editor’s usability and the management of blocks, others find the app to be suitable for specific purposes.
The Universe Website Builder offers a combination of strengths and limitations. It shows potential for creative and viral projects, but its usability issues and inability to fully address business needs could make it less ideal for broader website-building purposes.