Published by PlayTours | Study conducted June 2026
Transparency notice: This study was commissioned and published by PlayTours, one of the five apps evaluated. We have applied a rigorous, validated methodology and disclosed all relevant limitations. The raw data is available for download at the end of this article for independent verification.
There is no shortage of scavenger hunt app comparison articles online — most covering pricing, features, and ease of setup. But in reviewing the existing literature, we could find no study that had ever asked a more fundamental question from the participant's perspective:
Which scavenger hunt app actually looks the nicest to use?
We believe this is the first structured, participant-rated study of visual aesthetic perception across commercial scavenger hunt platforms. This article presents the full methodology, results, and analysis.
Interface aesthetics are not superficial. Research in human-computer interaction has consistently shown that visual appeal influences perceived usability, trust, and engagement — a phenomenon known as the aesthetic-usability effect (Norman, 2002). In event gamification, participant experience is the product. An interface that feels unpleasant to look at introduces friction before a single task is completed.
Event organisers spend considerable time selecting platforms based on features and price, but the participant's visual experience is rarely part of that evaluation — in part because no quantified data existed to inform it. This study addresses that gap.
This study used the Visual Aesthetics of Websites Inventory — Short Form (VisAWI-S), a validated psychometric instrument developed by Moshagen & Thielsch (2010) specifically for measuring visual aesthetics in digital interfaces.
The VisAWI-S consists of four items, each rated on a 1–7 scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 4 = Neutral, 7 = Strongly Agree):
The "boring" item is reverse-scored before averaging, so a rating of 7 ("strongly agree it is boring") becomes 1. The final VisAWI-S score is the average of all four items, producing a composite between 1 and 7. The instrument was selected because it was built specifically for digital interfaces, is widely cited in HCI research, and its use of a validated scale means findings can be compared against published literature.
Five commercial scavenger hunt platforms were included:
An identical game — "The Eiffel Tower Quest" — was created on each platform, comprising three tasks covering the most common interaction types:
The same title, task descriptions, and colour scheme (deep navy and warm gold) were applied across all platforms where permitted. Participants viewed static screenshots covering the game lobby, each task screen, and the completion screen — ensuring all participants evaluated the same interface version under identical conditions.
Cronbach's alpha was calculated for each app to verify the VisAWI-S was functioning reliably. The accepted threshold is 0.70; the VisAWI-S typically achieves 0.85 or above. All five apps exceeded this threshold:
Scores are out of 7, where 1 is strongly undesirable and 7 is strongly desirable. Standard deviation (SD) indicates how consistently participants rated each app.
To determine whether score differences were meaningful or could have occurred by chance, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were conducted for all pairwise comparisons — the appropriate non-parametric test for within-subjects ordinal data. A Bonferroni correction was applied (adjusted threshold: p < 0.005) to control for false positives across 10 simultaneous comparisons.
Comparisons that are statistically significant after Bonferroni correction:
Comparisons that are not statistically significant:
Top tier — PlayTours and GooseChase
Both apps scored significantly higher than all three remaining platforms. The difference between them was not statistically significant (p = 0.967, Cohen's d = 0.038 — negligible). They are statistically indistinguishable on visual aesthetics.
PlayTours recorded a lower standard deviation than GooseChase (1.02 vs 1.29), meaning ratings were more consistent across participants. GooseChase's higher SD suggests a more polarising design — stronger reactions in both directions.
Middle — Actionbound
Actionbound (4.42) sits significantly above Loquiz after Bonferroni correction (p = 0.003, d = 0.571), but is not significantly different from Scavify (p = 0.463).
Lower tier — Scavify and Loquiz
Scavify (4.15) and Loquiz (3.67) are not statistically distinguishable from each other (p = 0.097). Loquiz's score of 3.67 falls below the scale midpoint of 4 — meaning the average participant response leaned toward finding its interface visually undesirable.
VisAWI-S measures classical visual aesthetics — perceived beauty, pleasantness, and appeal. It does not measure usability, feature depth, reliability, organiser experience, or value for money.
All five apps have genuine strengths. Loquiz offers strong geolocation and white-label options. Actionbound has a well-established educational user base and a free personal tier. Scavify is built for enterprise events with deep branding customisation. GooseChase is a mature platform with strong community features. A lower aesthetic score here does not mean a platform is worse overall — organiser requirements and use case should always drive platform selection.
With PlayTours and GooseChase aesthetically tied, the decision for event organisers naturally shifts to price.
PlayTours pricing is based on concurrent active devices, with all features included at every tier and no feature gating:
PlayTours' free tier supports up to 25 concurrent active devices — enough to run a real event at no cost, which is unusually generous in this market.
GooseChase uses per-event pricing: $399 (Starter, up to 8 teams), $649 (Professional, up to 20 teams), $1,199 (Growth, up to 35 teams). An organiser running monthly sessions for 20 teams would pay $159/month on PlayTours for unlimited events, versus $649 per event on GooseChase Professional. Third-party reviewers have noted GooseChase's recent price increases have made the platform less accessible for some users.
GooseChase does offer annual subscription options. Scavify uses custom enterprise pricing with no public rates. Actionbound offers free personal use and per-player business licences. Loquiz has a free trial with subscription plans. Readers should verify current pricing directly with each vendor before making purchasing decisions.
Sample size and demographics. 32 participants exceeds the statistical minimum of 30 for within-subjects designs and all significant results survived Bonferroni correction. A larger sample would add confidence, particularly for the Scavify vs Loquiz comparison (p = 0.097). The sample skews toward ages 25–44, with no participants aged 45 or above.
Publisher conflict of interest. This study was commissioned and published by PlayTours. The blind rating phase was designed to mitigate bias, but readers should weigh this when interpreting results. Raw data is available below for independent verification.
Prior app exposure. Five participants (16%) had prior PlayTours experience. No participants reported prior use of any other tested app. App names were not displayed during rating, but prior familiarity may have had some influence.
Single stimulus. Results reflect one game theme, three task types, and one colour scheme. Platforms with strong custom branding capabilities may rate differently under other configurations.
VisAWI-S scope. The instrument measures classical aesthetics only — not expressive aesthetics (originality, personality) or pragmatic aesthetics (perceived usability). Platforms may score differently on these dimensions.
Interface versions are time-bound. Ratings reflect interfaces as they existed in June 2026 and may not reflect future redesigns.
To our knowledge, this is the first structured, participant-rated study of visual aesthetic perception across commercial scavenger hunt platforms using a standardised game stimulus and a validated psychometric instrument.
PlayTours and GooseChase are rated as the most visually appealing interfaces, scoring significantly higher than Actionbound, Scavify, and Loquiz. The difference between the two is statistically negligible (p = 0.967, d = 0.038). Actionbound holds a distinct middle position; Scavify and Loquiz form the lower tier.
Where PlayTours and GooseChase diverge is on price. For event organisers seeking the most visually appealing participant experience at the most accessible price point, the data supports PlayTours as the strongest option in the current market.
Moshagen, M., & Thielsch, M. T. (2010). Facets of visual aesthetics. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68(10), 689–709.
Norman, D. A. (2002). The Design of Everyday Things. Basic Books.
Pricing data is based on publicly available information as of June 2026 and is subject to change. Readers should verify current pricing directly with each vendor. Third-party trademarks belong to their respective owners. This article represents the views of PlayTours and should be read in the context of the publisher conflict of interest disclosed above.
The full anonymised dataset is available for download, including all 32 participants' VisAWI-S responses, demographic data, and prior app exposure flags.
1Respondent,Design Background,Prior App Exposure,Age Group,Daily Smartphone Usage,Loquiz — Appealing,Loquiz — Boring,Loquiz — Pleasant,Loquiz — Aesthetic,Actionbound — Appealing,Actionbound — Boring,Actionbound — Pleasant,Actionbound — Aesthetic,PlayTours — Appealing,PlayTours — Boring,PlayTours — Pleasant,PlayTours — Aesthetic,Scavify — Appealing,Scavify — Boring,Scavify — Pleasant,Scavify — Aesthetic,GooseChase — Appealing,GooseChase — Boring,GooseChase — Pleasant,GooseChase — Aesthetic
2R01,No,PlayTours,25 - 34,More than 5 hours,3,6,5,4,4,4,4,4,6,2,5,7,3,4,4,5,3,3,5,7
3R02,No,None of the above,35 - 44,More than 5 hours,3,7,4,1,4,4,4,1,6,2,6,4,4,3,4,2,6,1,6,6
4R03,No,None of the above,25 - 34,More than 5 hours,3,6,5,2,1,5,1,1,6,1,7,6,1,7,1,1,7,1,7,7
5R04,No,PlayTours,25 - 34,More than 5 hours,4,5,5,4,5,3,5,5,5,4,6,5,5,3,5,4,6,2,6,6
6R05,No,PlayTours,25 - 34,More than 5 hours,4,5,4,2,5,3,5,5,6,2,6,7,5,3,5,5,7,1,7,7
7R06,No,None of the above,25 - 34,More than 5 hours,3,6,4,3,4,4,4,4,6,2,6,6,6,3,6,5,6,2,5,5
8R07,No,None of the above,25 - 34,1 - 3 hours,6,1,7,4,4,5,4,2,6,1,6,5,6,1,6,5,5,1,5,6
9R08,No,None of the above,35 - 44,1 - 3 hours,3,3,3,3,7,1,7,7,4,4,4,4,1,7,2,2,2,6,5,5
10R09,No,None of the above,25 - 34,More than 5 hours,4,2,5,3,2,1,3,3,4,4,4,4,5,4,5,5,5,4,5,5
11R10,No,None of the above,25 - 34,1 - 3 hours,2,6,3,2,6,3,5,5,5,4,5,4,3,4,4,3,5,2,5,4
12R11,No,None of the above,25 - 34,1 - 3 hours,5,5,6,4,6,3,6,6,5,5,6,6,4,5,5,4,5,4,5,5
13R12,No,None of the above,35 - 44,More than 5 hours,3,6,5,2,6,4,5,5,7,2,7,7,7,1,7,7,7,1,7,7
14R13,No,None of the above,25 - 34,More than 5 hours,6,2,6,4,5,3,5,5,7,1,7,6,5,3,5,1,7,2,7,6
15R14,No,None of the above,25 - 34,More than 5 hours,4,5,4,3,6,2,5,6,6,2,6,6,5,3,5,5,5,3,6,5
16R15,No,None of the above,25 - 34,3 - 5 hours,4,5,4,3,6,3,5,5,6,3,5,6,4,4,4,4,5,4,5,4
17R16,No,None of the above,35 - 44,3 - 5 hours,4,4,4,5,4,5,4,4,5,4,5,5,4,4,4,4,5,3,5,5
18R17,Yes,None of the above,25 - 34,More than 5 hours,5,2,5,5,5,2,5,6,7,2,7,7,4,4,4,4,6,2,6,6
19R18,No,PlayTours,25 - 34,3 - 5 hours,4,2,5,2,4,1,5,4,5,1,6,5,5,1,5,6,6,1,6,7
20R19,Marketing but working with designers,None of the above,25 - 34,More than 5 hours,3,6,3,3,3,4,4,3,5,4,4,4,5,4,5,4,5,3,5,5
21R20,No,None of the above,35 - 44,More than 5 hours,3,5,3,3,5,3,3,1,5,4,5,5,4,5,5,2,2,3,2,1
22R21,No,None of the above,25 - 34,3 - 5 hours,3,5,3,3,5,3,4,5,5,3,4,5,2,6,3,3,5,3,5,5
23R22,Yes,None of the above,18 - 24,More than 5 hours,4,5,5,3,2,3,3,4,5,3,5,6,4,3,5,5,5,2,5,6
24R23,No,None of the above,25 - 34,More than 5 hours,4,5,6,3,6,3,6,5,5,5,6,5,2,6,3,3,4,4,3,4
25R24,No,None of the above,35 - 44,3 - 5 hours,3,5,4,4,4,4,4,4,6,2,5,5,7,1,6,6,7,1,7,7
26R25,No,None of the above,25 - 34,1 - 3 hours,5,6,6,3,3,6,5,3,6,3,6,6,2,6,2,3,7,1,7,7
27R26,No,None of the above,35 - 44,More than 5 hours,7,1,7,7,7,1,7,7,7,1,7,7,7,1,7,7,7,1,7,7
28R27,No,None of the above,25 - 34,1 - 3 hours,4,6,4,2,5,2,4,6,6,2,7,7,3,5,3,4,5,2,5,5
29R28,No,None of the above,25 - 34,1 - 3 hours,2,6,4,2,4,4,4,3,5,2,6,6,5,3,5,5,5,2,6,6
30R29,Yes,None of the above,25 - 34,1 - 3 hours,1,7,3,1,2,5,4,2,2,6,3,2,1,7,1,1,6,1,6,7
31R30,No,None of the above,25 - 34,More than 5 hours,3,5,4,3,4,3,4,4,5,3,5,5,4,3,4,4,3,4,3,3
32R31,Yes,None of the above,25 - 34,More than 5 hours,2,6,5,2,2,6,2,1,5,4,5,4,3,4,3,3,2,4,2,2
33R32,No,PlayTours,35 - 44,3 - 5 hours,5,5,6,4,6,3,6,6,5,4,6,5,5,3,5,5,6,1,6,6Email us at hello@playtours.app
