Comparison
Looking for a Marker.io alternative? Here is the honest version.
- Marker.io
- Per project, from around $39/mo
- UserWants
- One plan, unlimited projects and widgets
What they are
Marker.io in one sentence
Straight answer
Where each one wins
Pick Marker.io for
Two-way issue tracker sync
Reports become Jira, GitHub, Linear or Azure DevOps issues, and status changes flow back. UserWants has no integrations at all — reports live in its own inbox and reach your editor over MCP.
Annotation on the screenshot
Reporters draw, point and highlight on the page before sending. UserWants captures the viewport and offers no drawing tools.
Session replay and data masking
They record the session leading up to the report and let you mask sensitive fields. Neither exists here.
Pick UserWants for
One price however many sites you run
Marker.io bills per project, so an agency with eight client sites pays eight times. UserWants is one flat plan with unlimited projects, widgets and reports, and nothing metered.
The reporter does not have to be trained
Annotation assumes somebody who knows what to circle. Reports here arrive with up to 10 JavaScript errors, their stack frames and the last 50 clicks whether or not the person explains anything.
The MCP server is the product, not a beta
Your agent authenticates as you through OAuth and inherits your project role, so a teammate who cannot change a status in the UI is not offered the tool in their editor either.
Side by side
Feature comparison
| Feature | UserWants | Marker.io |
|---|---|---|
| Install | One script tag | Script tag or extension |
| Reporter needs an account | No | No |
| Annotation tools | No | Yes |
| Session replay | No | Yes |
| JavaScript errors + stack traces | Up to 10, automatic | Console log capture |
| Steps before the report | Last 50, automatic | Session replay |
| Jira / GitHub / Linear | No | Two-way sync |
| MCP for coding agents | Yes, OAuth, 3 tools | Yes, beta |
| Feature requests | Same inbox | Bug-focused |
| Pricing | Flat, unlimited projects | Per project |
Verdict
Which one to pick
If your bug reports come from a QA team or from clients reviewing a build, stay with Marker.io — annotation plus two-way Jira sync is a workflow UserWants does not attempt, and losing it to save money would be a bad trade. Switch when the reports come from ordinary users who cannot describe a bug, or when paying per project has stopped making sense.
UserWants is for
Small teams and agencies where reports come from real users across several sites
Marker.io is for
Teams running structured QA or client review inside Jira
FAQ
Before you switch
- Is there a Marker.io alternative that connects to Jira?
- Not this one. UserWants has no third-party integrations by design — reports stay in its inbox and reach your editor through MCP instead. If a Jira ticket per report is essential to your workflow, Marker.io remains the better fit and switching would cost you that.
- Can I run both at once while I decide?
- Yes. Both are a script tag, they do not conflict, and each renders inside its own shadow root. Most teams keep both live for a sprint and compare what actually lands in each inbox before removing one.
- What replaces annotation?
- The automatic evidence: the JavaScript error with its stack frame, the browser and viewport, and the numbered list of what the person clicked before reporting. It answers a different question than an arrow drawn on a screenshot, and needs nothing from the reporter.
Try it beside Marker.io.
Paste the tag on the same site and run both for a sprint. The reports arrive in parallel and nothing about your current setup changes.