Hotjar tells you how users behave. SnagRelay tells you what broke when one of them reports it. They are different tools for different teams, and a product team often wants both.
Different jobs
| SnagRelay | Hotjar | |
|---|---|---|
| Primary purpose | Bug reports with the evidence attached | User behaviour and feedback analytics |
| Heatmaps and surveys | No | Core features |
| Session replay | The moments before a report, tied to the report | Recordings for understanding behaviour |
| Report carries element, requests with bodies, console errors | Yes | Not what it is built for |
| Agent access | MCP server | Not a bug-fixing workflow |
| Where reports go | Inbox, or one of six trackers | Hotjar dashboard |
| Pricing | Per project, never per reporter | See Hotjar pricing |
When Hotjar is the right tool
- You want to understand how users move through the product and where they stall.
- You want to run surveys or collect sentiment.
- Your owners are product and UX teams.
When SnagRelay is the right tool
- Someone found a bug and you need the evidence to fix it.
- You want a coding agent to read the report and resolve it.
- You want the report in your tracker or in an inbox.
Where SnagRelay is different
Reporters point at the element
The reporter clicks what is wrong. The report records its label, component and selector and outlines in red the elements tied to an error or a failed request. See the element picker.
Requests with bodies, failed and successful
Each report carries the console errors and the requests around it, with request and response bodies. See what every report includes.
Your coding agent reads it, and the reporter hears back
Cursor, Claude Code and Codex read a report by key over MCP, and mark_issue_resolved sends the reporter a "fixed" email.
Using both
Hotjar shows where people struggle. SnagRelay captures the bug when one of them says so. They answer different questions and work well together.