Use the validated 10-item SUS questionnaire to benchmark your product, uncover the parts of the experience holding users back, and track improvement over time.
0–100 scoreA–F letter gradePercentile vs norm (68)Usability & LearnabilityItem-level breakdownScore distribution
10
Standard items
68
Industry pass line
A–F
Letter grade
0.92
Cronbach's α
Usability needs more than a gut feeling.
01Guessing whether your product is "usable enough"?
02No standard number to compare against the industry?
03Can’t tell if it’s ease-of-use or learning that hurts?
04No idea which question is dragging the score down?
The SUS turns usability into one validated, benchmarked number.
FROM SETUP TO FIELDWORK
The 10 validated items, ready to go. See exactly what respondents answer.
No manual setup — the standard SUS item set is pre-built, alternating positive and reverse-coded statements.
createsurvey · sus
SUS item 1 (positive)Q2
I think that I would like to use this system frequently.
Scale
1Strongly disagree
2Disagree
3Neutral
4Agree
5Strongly agree
9 more validated items follow, alternating positive and reverse-coded statements, plus one open-text question.
Apply to survey
Live
Live preview
Question 2 of 12
I think that I would like to use this system frequently. *
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
‹ Previous
* Required
Next ›
Left: one of the 10 ready-made SUS items every study starts from. Right: exactly what respondents see — updated as you edit the wording.
FROM RESPONSES TO RESULTS
From 10 items to a score you can benchmark
Every figure below comes from one real example study — 30 respondents on the standard 10-item SUS questionnaire, computed by the same engine your own survey runs on.
SUS score & benchmark
The validated 0–100 score, letter grade, percentile against the norm, and pass rate.
SUS Score & Benchmarkn=30
SUS SCORE
77.9
Grade B · Good
PERCENTILE
78.6%
vs norm (68)
PASS RATE
76.7%
respondents ≥68
Benchmark position
F
D
C
B
A
0avg 68100
Reliability
Cronbach's alpha and the Bangor acceptability label confirm the score is trustworthy.
Reliability & Acceptability
Respondents30
Items10
Acceptability (Bangor)Acceptable
Pass rate (≥68)76.7%
Cronbach's α0.92
α = 0.92 is well above the 0.70 reliability floor — the 10 items are measuring one consistent construct.
Usability vs. learnability
The Lewis & Sauro two-factor split shows where the real bottleneck is.
Sub-scalesLewis & Sauro
Usability
77.9
Grade B
Learnability
77.9
Grade B
"Usability" is the weaker dimension at 77.9. Simplifying core flows and reducing friction may help.
Score distribution
See the full spread of individual scores against the 68 benchmark, not just the average.
No credit card requiredIndustry benchmark included
Survey AnalysisUsability
System Usability Scale (SUS)
0–100 usability score, grade, percentile, sub-scales, and item-level breakdown.
Executive Summary
30 respondents · 10 items
This SUS study measured 30 complete responses across 10 items. The SUS score is 76.6/100 (Grade B, Good) — the 75.4th percentile vs the industry norm (68), rated Acceptable. "Usability" is the weaker sub-scale (75.3, Grade B) — the likely bottleneck. The lowest-scoring item, "I thought the system was easy to use." (65), is the top priority for improvement. Scale reliability (Cronbach's α) is 0.91 (good).
Study Design & Key Metrics
Metric
Value
Complete responses
30
Items
10
SUS score / grade
76.6 · Grade B
Percentile (vs norm 68)
75.4%
Acceptability (Bangor)
Acceptable
Pass rate (respondents ≥ 68)
73.3%
Reliability (Cronbach's α)
0.91 · good
30 complete responses · 10 items
Survey AnalysisUsability
System Usability Scale (SUS)
0–100 usability score, grade, percentile, sub-scales, and item-level breakdown.
Executive Summary
30 respondents · 10 items
This SUS study measured 30 complete responses across 10 items. The SUS score is 76.6/100 (Grade B, Good) — the 75.4th percentile vs the industry norm (68), rated Acceptable. "Usability" is the weaker sub-scale (75.3, Grade B) — the likely bottleneck. The lowest-scoring item, "I thought the system was easy to use." (65), is the top priority for improvement. Scale reliability (Cronbach's α) is 0.91 (good).
Study Design & Key Metrics
Metric
Value
Complete responses
30
Items
10
SUS score / grade
76.6 · Grade B
Estimate range (95%)
71.7 – 81.4
Score range
0 – 100 (not a percentage)
Raw answer mean
2.88 / 5
Percentile (vs norm 68)
75.4%
Acceptability (Bangor)
Acceptable
Pass rate (respondents ≥ 68)
73.3%
Reliability (Cronbach's α)
0.91 · good
How the score is worked out
An example of how the score is arrived at, so you can see how each item answer feeds the total.
1Each item is turned the same way round first: a positively worded item contributes (answer − 1), a negatively worded one contributes (5 − answer).
2The 10 contributions are added, then divided by the most they could be (10 × 4) and multiplied by 100.
3So answering 3 — the middle option — to every item gives 50, not 100 or 0. This survey's result is 76.6.
Because the items point in opposite directions, a plain mean of the raw answers is not this score. Use the item card below to find where the experience was rated low.
How to read this score
The score with its estimate range, and the raw answer mean next to it.
SUS score
76.6
Estimate range 71.7 – 81.4
Raw answer mean
2.88 / 5
Answers as given, before reverse-coding.
Respondents at or above 68
73.3%
Share of people, not the score itself.
• This is a 0–100 index, not a percentage — 76.6 does not mean "76.6% of people were satisfied". The raw answer mean is 2.88 out of 5. The share of people is the 73.3% above.
Overall score and how it is spread
What the mean hides: the lowest and highest scores, and the middle half.
47.5median 75100
• Scores run from 47.5 to 100 (52.5 points apart); the middle half sits between 68.1 and 86.9. The mean of 76.6 is one point inside that spread, so read it together with the range rather than on its own.
Reference points and the conditions behind them
The commonly used benchmarks, with where each number came from and under what conditions it was measured.
Benchmark
Value
Source
Measured under
Common average
68
Sauro (2011)
Pooled across ~500 studies and 5,000 responses from many industries and products — not measured on your industry or your task.
Adjective ratings
85.5 best imaginable / 80.3 excellent / 68 good / 51 OK
Bangor, Kortum & Miller (2009)
Mostly lab studies — conditions differ from unmoderated remote surveys.
Sub-scale split
Usability 8 items / Learnability 2 items (4 & 10)
Lewis & Sauro (2009)
The factor structure has been reported to vary by sample.
• A benchmark measured under different conditions cannot be compared directly — passing 68 on its own does not mean the experience is fine. Record the source and the conditions next to any benchmark you quote, and compare against your own earlier waves where you can.
Benchmark Position
F
D
C
B
A
0avg 68100
• At 76.6 the product is above the industry average of 68, but there is room to reach Grade A (80+).
Easy to use, easy to learn
Usability vs Learnability (Lewis & Sauro) — where the weakness lies.
Usability
75.3
Grade B
70.4–80.3 · 8 items
Learnability
81.7
Grade A
76.2–87.1 · 2 items
• "Usability" is the weaker dimension at 75.3. Simplifying core flows and reducing friction in everyday tasks may help.
Score Distribution
How individual SUS scores spread, against the 68 benchmark.
Each bar = how many respondents fell in that 10-point score band; bars right of the dashed line are above the industry average.
• Median 75, SD 13.6. Tight spread — a consistent experience across users.
I think that I would like to use this system frequently.
71.7
I found the various functions in this system were well integrated.
75.8
I would imagine that most people would learn to use this system very quickly.
77.5
I felt very confident using the system.
78.3
I think that I would need the support of a technical person to be able to use this system.
80.8
I thought there was too much inconsistency in this system.
82.5
I needed to learn a lot of things before I could get going with this system.
82.5
I found the system unnecessarily complex.
85
• Weakest item: "I thought the system was easy to use." (65) — addressing the underlying cause may be the highest priority.
Conclusions and next steps
Which items to look at first, what to improve, and what to check next time.
1The score is 76.6 across 30 respondents, ranging from 47.5 to 100.0; 7330.0% of respondents are at or above the 68 reference point.
2The lowest-rated items are "I thought the system was easy to use.", "I found the system very cumbersome to use.", "I think that I would like to use this system frequently.". Walk through the step each one refers to and look for the specific friction in the comments.
3"Usability" sits at 75.3 against "Learnability" at 81.7 — a gap of 6.4. Read it as a direction, since a sub-scale rests on fewer items than the whole score.
4Keep the same reference point and the same tasks next round so before and after can be compared.
SUS = Σ(item contributions) / (10×4) × 100. Odd items positive, even items reverse-scored. Benchmark mean = 68 (Sauro-Lewis). 30 complete responses. SUS measures perceived usability — validate with task-based testing.
