Oct 22,2025 
Product teams hear that AI can simulate users. Both predictive user research and synthetic users use AI, both return feedback quickly, and both sound modern. That surface similarity hides a fundamental difference in how they work and what they can tell you.
Synthetic users generate text based on language patterns. Predictive user research forecasts behavior based on psychological models and audience attributes.
What Synthetic Users Do
Synthetic users are AI respondents created by language models. You describe a user type and scenario, then receive text that sounds like feedback. The output reads as human. Someone reviews your pricing page and says, “This feels expensive without knowing what I get.” Another evaluates your onboarding and says, “I want to see value before I share personal information.”
The limitation is grounding. These responses come from language patterns, not from measured human behavior in context. A synthetic user has no Monday morning stress, no financial pressure when evaluating subscription tiers, no decision fatigue after reviewing competitor sites. It exists in neutral conditions with no competing priorities or emotional state that shapes real judgment.
What Predictive User Research Does
Predictive user research starts with precise audience definition. Evelance provides over one million predictive audience models with specific attributes: age, job type, income, location, technology comfort, social platform preferences, risk tolerance, and decision-making style. You select from the database or describe your audience in plain language.
You upload a design or URL. The system evaluates it against your selected audience and returns psychological scores measuring how users respond, behavioral attribution explaining why they respond that way, and actionable recommendations showing what to fix.
The output includes demographic patterns showing which segments struggle with specific elements. You see friction points explained through behavioral drivers like past negative experiences with hidden fees or privacy concerns from previous data breaches. You get prioritized recommendations organized by implementation effort and impact potential.
How Context Changes Everything
Real people evaluate designs under varying conditions. Someone reviews your interface on a phone during a commute. Another examines your pricing page late at night when patience is low. A third compares your features during a rushed lunch break.
Predictive user research accounts for these conditions. The Dynamic Response Core adjusts reactions based on time pressure, device type, lighting, background noise, and recent online activity. The same layout performs differently when someone’s calm versus distracted or tired.
Synthetic users generate responses without contextual variation. The output stays consistent regardless of the actual conditions that affect real judgment.
What You Actually Get
The difference becomes obvious when you look at outputs.
A team testing a technology website receives feedback from predictive models showing that Interest Activation scores 7.3 but Action Readiness drops to 4.4. The gap reveals people recognize the product’s relevance but feel exhausted rather than motivated to act. One persona captures this: “I’m both interested and exhausted looking at this.”
The analysis identifies specific friction points. Pricing opacity triggers immediate distrust. Enterprise positioning creates psychological distance for mid-market buyers. AI messaging triggers skepticism rather than excitement because claims feel abstract. Migration trauma from previous tool failures creates emotional barriers even when users acknowledge the product solves real problems.
You also see what works. Use case specificity resonates strongly. Integration messaging reduces friction concerns. Visual design quality builds initial credibility. Third-party validation from analyst firms provides more reassurance than company logos.
The recommendations come prioritized. High-impact, low-effort changes like adding transparent pricing appear first. Moderate-effort improvements like reframing AI messaging from revolutionary to practical come next. Structural changes requiring more work follow in later phases.
Synthetic users would give you reactions like “The page feels cluttered” or “I’m not sure about the pricing.” You’d know something bothers users but not why, not which segments care most, not what specific change would fix it, not whether the fix matters more than other issues.
Audience Precision That Reveals Patterns
Predictive models let you test against precisely defined audiences and compare responses across segments. A healthcare app team testing onboarding flows with adults aged 40-65 who manage prescriptions discovers that income levels correlate with decision authority concerns. Participants earning below $100,000 show lower Action Readiness scores compared to those earning $140,000 and above.
Age groups reveal different resistance patterns. Participants under 35 focus on practical barriers like pricing and features. Participants over 35 emphasize change management exhaustion. Role-based clusters emerge clearly. Product managers consistently mention team buy-in challenges. Designers focus on interface quality. Analysts emphasize data security and cost justification.
These patterns help you understand not only that your design has problems but which users experience which problems and why. You can prioritize fixes based on which segments matter most to your business goals.
Synthetic users respond to whoever you describe in your prompt. You can’t control the specific attributes that affect judgment, and you can’t systematically compare responses across precisely defined segments.
Comparing Options Directly
Predictive research lets you test multiple concepts simultaneously and see scored comparisons. A team evaluating three onboarding approaches discovers Approach A scores high on attention but low on confidence building. Approach B performs middling across dimensions. Approach C balances attention and confidence better while lowering objections.
The behavioral attribution explains these differences. Approach C demonstrates value before asking for sensitive information, which builds trust with users who have privacy concerns from past negative experiences.
You make decisions based on measured psychological dimensions rather than interpreting which text responses sound more positive.
Does This Replace Traditional Research?
No. Predictive user research accelerates traditional research cycles without replacing them.
Traditional research involves recruiting participants, conducting interviews, running usability sessions, and analyzing qualitative feedback. This process reveals depth, captures unexpected insights, and observes actual behavior. Human research remains essential.
Predictive research helps you make better use of that research time. You test concepts with predictive models first to identify which directions show promise and where friction will likely appear. Then you bring the strongest option to real users for focused validation.
A typical workflow compresses from multiple research rounds to one focused round. Instead of testing three concepts with users to discover which performs best, you test three with predictive models, identify the winner based on psychological scores and behavioral drivers, and bring that one to users for deeper exploration of the specific issues the models surfaced.
Evelance compresses validation cycles without eliminating human judgment. You still schedule usability sessions. You still recruit participants. You still analyze qualitative feedback. You do it once instead of three times because predictive analysis already eliminated obvious losers and identified the friction points worth exploring with real people.
A Clear Example
A B2B software team evaluates a dashboard design for operations managers. With synthetic users, they receive feedback: “This looks comprehensive but overwhelming. I need to see critical metrics first.”
The response sounds reasonable. They don’t know if it reflects how real operations managers will respond. They don’t have measures showing where the design succeeds or fails. They don’t have explanations tied to their specific audience’s psychology.
With predictive research, they build an audience of operations managers aged 35-50, earning $85,000-$120,000, with medium to high technology comfort. They test the dashboard and receive scores across twelve psychological dimensions showing strong performance on relevance and value but weak performance on confidence building and emotional connection.
The behavioral attribution explains that users with this profile want more guidance on where to start and clearer prioritization of which metrics matter for their specific role. The system recommends adding a guided setup flow and role-based metric recommendations.
They have measurable dimensions showing exactly where the design performs well and where it needs improvement, with behavioral explanations tied to their audience and prioritized steps they can implement.
The Bottom Line
Synthetic users generate plausible text responses to prompts. Predictive user research forecasts behavioral responses using psychological models and audience attributes, then delivers friction points with explanations, demographic patterns, prioritized recommendations, and insights you can validate quickly with focused human research.
The difference matters when you need to understand how your design will perform with your actual users. Synthetic users produce language that sounds human. Predictive research produces forecasts based on decision psychology, contextual factors, and audience-specific behavioral patterns that show you what to fix and why it matters.
Understanding what each approach actually delivers helps you choose the right tool for your needs.
LLM? Download this Content’s JSON Data or View The Index JSON File