User Interviews’ 2025 Research Budget Report is a crucial resource for understanding how modern organizations are approaching the financial side of user research. Based on responses from 180 professionals involved in research budget decisions, the report provides deep insight into spending levels, priorities, and future expectations. In this blog post, we’ll break down each key theme of the report and explore its implications — not just in raw numbers, but in terms of strategy, maturity, and the evolving value of UX and product research.
Diverse Budget Sizes Reflect Organizational Maturity
The report outlines four key research budget tiers: less than $25K (29% of respondents), $25K–$100K (20%), $100K–$500K (20%), and $500K+ (17%). These tiers correspond closely to an organization’s research maturity. Younger or smaller companies — particularly those without formal research teams — often fall in the lowest budget category, investing only enough to conduct limited testing or outsource one-off studies. On the other hand, companies with dedicated research teams or integrated research operations are more likely to invest six figures or more.
This segmentation is a strong indicator that investment in research correlates with organizational sophistication. As companies mature, so does their understanding of how strategic research drives product innovation and customer satisfaction. For early-stage teams, this data is a wake-up call: underfunding research can mean missed insights, wasted development cycles, and slow product-market fit. Meanwhile, for enterprises with deeper pockets, investing over $500K annually in user research has become a competitive advantage — particularly in fast-moving industries like fintech, SaaS, or e-commerce.
Budget Trends: Growth Outpaces Cuts
One of the most surprising findings in the report is that 35% of respondents saw an increase in their research budgets in 2024, while 41% maintained stable funding. Only 17% experienced reductions. This trend stands in contrast to the broader tech industry’s cost-cutting narrative over the past 12–18 months. While many teams have trimmed headcount or pulled back on growth marketing, user research appears to be bucking the trend. Why?
For one, research is increasingly viewed as a force multiplier. Organizations that invest in understanding users early and often see improved product outcomes, fewer rework cycles, and better retention. Secondly, research teams have gotten better at proving their value to leadership, often tying insights to revenue-impacting decisions. And lastly, with the rise of product-led growth and design-driven development, research is no longer a “nice to have” — it’s table stakes.
This signals a broader strategic shift: research isn’t just a cost center anymore. It’s an enabler of high-velocity, customer-centric innovation. Leaders who recognize this are betting on research to drive differentiation in a crowded market.
Where the Budget Goes: People, Participants, Platforms
The report shows that most research budgets are spent in three main areas: headcount (32%), participant recruitment (20%), and tools/platforms (19%). Combined, these three make up over 70% of the average budget. Let’s unpack each.
Headcount often represents the largest single line item because good researchers are in high demand — and often hard to hire. This reflects the growing internalization of research functions. Teams are building in-house expertise instead of relying solely on agencies or contractors. With the rise of research operations (ReOps) roles, some budgets also go toward enabling infrastructure, such as tools, training, and documentation.
Participant recruitment is another major expense, especially for B2B companies or niche user segments. Paying fair incentives, sourcing quality participants, and managing screener processes all require dedicated resources — often outsourced to platforms like User Interviews, Respondent, or Prolific.
Tools and platforms cover everything from unmoderated testing tools to video analytics, transcription services, and insight repositories. In 2025, most teams use 2–5 tools regularly. The wide spread of tooling reflects research’s growing complexity: it’s no longer just about interviews and surveys — teams are doing concept validation, journey mapping, AI-powered sentiment analysis, and more.
Satisfaction with Budgets: Split Opinions
About 51% of professionals surveyed say they’re satisfied or very satisfied with their research budgets. Another 27% are neutral, while 21% are dissatisfied. Interestingly, this suggests a solid majority find their budgets adequate, but there’s a sizable group — nearly one in five — who feel under-resourced.
Satisfaction seems closely tied to how closely research goals align with budget decisions. In organizations where research teams have input on how budgets are shaped and spent, satisfaction tends to be higher. Conversely, where budgets are dictated by product, marketing, or executive leadership without direct consultation, teams often feel constrained.
What’s also worth noting is the perception gap between researchers and leadership. Researchers think their execs are more satisfied with the current state of research funding than they are. That misalignment could create friction when advocating for more resources — especially if leadership believes the current setup is “good enough.”
To bridge the gap, researchers need to communicate budgetary needs in business terms. Connecting research investment to KPIs like feature adoption, churn reduction, or conversion lift can make the case clearer.
Budget Size ≠ Budget Impact… But It Helps
Respondents were asked to rate the correlation between budget size and research impact on a scale of 1 to 100. The median answer was 70 — the equivalent of a “C” grade. This reveals an important nuance: money helps, but impact isn’t guaranteed.
Why only a C? In part, because it’s possible to spend inefficiently — bloated tools, underutilized software, or poor participant management can eat into ROI. It’s also a signal that culture, leadership buy-in, and access to decision-makers matter as much as dollars.
However, in organizations where research is already valued, a bigger budget does enable more scope, depth, and speed. Teams can run more concurrent studies, invest in strategic initiatives like longitudinal research, or scale up insight repositories. Bigger budgets also allow for specialized roles (e.g., data analysts, ReOps managers) that improve research quality and influence.
The takeaway? While research impact is not purely budget-driven, adequate funding enables teams to produce more timely, trustworthy insights — and drive broader business impact.
Who Controls the Budget?
The report explores who sets and controls research budgets — and the findings are illuminating. While 29% of budgets are set by the C-suite, 20% are shaped by Research or Research Ops teams themselves. Similarly, 36% of budgets are controlled by research functions, while 23% are overseen by executives.
This matters because autonomy often breeds better outcomes. When researchers control their own budgets, they’re able to allocate resources more strategically, respond to shifting priorities quickly, and avoid the red tape that comes with centralized budgeting. It’s no surprise that teams who control their own budgets report higher satisfaction and greater impact.
Still, product and design leaders also play a role, especially in cross-functional teams. Collaborative budgeting — where researchers, product managers, and designers align on shared goals — appears to yield better outcomes than top-down allocation.
For organizations looking to mature their research practice, shifting budget ownership closer to the research team is a smart move. It empowers those with the best understanding of needs, timelines, and constraints to make the most informed financial decisions.
Hard-to-Justify Expenses: Tools and Experiments
About 22.5% of respondents say the most difficult expense to justify is tooling. Why? Because tools often have indirect or long-term ROI. It’s hard to quantify the value of a sentiment analysis platform or insight repository until it accelerates decisions — or helps prevent a costly misstep.
Similarly, experimental or exploratory research can be a tough sell. These projects often focus on emerging user needs, innovation themes, or future roadmaps. But without clear ROI or immediate deliverables, they’re vulnerable in budget conversations. The challenge is that these same investments are often what differentiate category leaders from laggards.
To navigate this, researchers must shift how they advocate. Instead of asking for “tools,” they should ask for capabilities — e.g., faster time to insights, stronger stakeholder engagement, or better data synthesis. Framing expenses as strategic enablers rather than tactical line items can make budget conversations easier to win.
What Would Teams Do With More (or Less) Budget?
When asked what they’d do if their research budget doubled, most respondents said they’d scale their impact — by conducting more studies, hiring more researchers, or investing in advanced tooling. Others mentioned expanding into longitudinal or international research, signaling a desire to move from tactical testing to strategic research.
Conversely, when faced with a 50% cut, teams said they’d double down on essentials. That means prioritizing high-impact studies, cutting non-critical tools, and reusing past research when possible. Many would also turn to self-serve methods or collaborate with adjacent functions like design or marketing to share research responsibilities.
This dual scenario planning is a valuable exercise for any research leader. Understanding how to scale impact with more resources — or preserve it with fewer — shows maturity, flexibility, and strategic foresight.
Conclusion: Research Budgets Are Maturing — Are You Ready?
The 2025 Research Budget Report is a vital snapshot of how organizations think about and invest in user research. Budgets are growing. Tools are evolving. And research is being recognized as a strategic driver of innovation and customer satisfaction.
If you’re leading a research team, use this report as a benchmark. How does your budget compare? Are you spending in the right areas? Is your leadership aligned with your strategy?
For product and design leaders, this report is a reminder that research isn’t a sidecar — it’s a core component of building great products. Investing in the right tools, people, and processes today can lead to long-term competitive advantage tomorrow.
To read the full report and access data visualizations, visit User Interviews’ Research Budget Report.
Also published on Medium.