## 5 Discussion  
This study examined significant differences in usability, UX, trust, task difficulty, emotional affect, and mental workload between chatbots and non-AI tools in qualitative data analysis, revealing key insights into how these tools impact user perception. Compared to existing usability evaluations of intelligent chatbots, a higher reliability of the results was achieved in this study (overall [PERSON]'s \(\alpha=0.814\), compared to 0.605, achieved by [65]). The obtained results of ChatGPT's usability (\(\overline{x}=79.93\)) were higher compared to the existing literature, where the SUS value of 67.44 was measured [65]. Although the average SUS scores of Taguette (\(\overline{x}=74.95\)) and Gemini (\(\overline{x}=75.08\)) were slightly lower, all three tools observed in this paper reached acceptable usability scores. Obtained usability scores were higher compared to Aswaja chatbot (\(\overline{x}=64.0\), [14]) and myHardware chatbot (\(\overline{x}=61.0\), [61]), that were also evaluated in the educational domain. The positive results of our study highlight the user acceptance of AI chatbots across various tasks. The UX evaluation (conducted with UEQ-S, separating hedonic and pragmatic scale) of the three observed tools showed overall positive results, though pairwise comparison with Dunn's Test showed Taguette obtained statistically significant lower scores in separate comparison with ChatGPT and Gemini. This could indicate that AI chatbots can offer better UX than classic QDA tools for observed qualitative analysis tasks. UEQ-S results were compared to the benchmark values of related 468 studies, offered by the tool. For pragmatic quality, Taguette and ChatGPT reached the threshold for 'Good', while Gemini reached the threshold for 'Excellent'. For hedonic quality, Taguette was evaluated as 'bad' (in the range of 25% of the lowest obtained results), while ChatGPT and Gemini were evaluated as 'Excellent' (in the range of top 10% of related studies). All overall UEQ results (\(\overline{x}_{7}aquette=0.36\), \(\overline{x}_{5}chatGPT=1.78\), \(\overline{x}_{5}emini=1.85\)) were much lower compared to the study, analyzing the UX of Atrexa chatbot, where the overall UEQ of 2.379 was observed [64]. Notably, the number of participants in their study was quite lower (N = 17), compared to our study's larger sample size of 82. Consequently, the difference in sample size and composition may be a factor worth considering when comparing UEQ-S result scores across studies. The evaluation of trust within our study, as measured by the TOAST questionnaire, provides insightful perspectives on users' trust in the QDA tools analyzed. The reliability of metrics (\(0.735<Chronbacha<0.853\)) remained robust across individual tools and subscales, suggesting that the questionnaire effectively captures the dimensions of trust across varying contexts. On the performance subscale, which reflects users' trust in the system's capability to assist them in completing their tasks, Taguette was the highest-rated tool with a mean score of 5.38 (Std = 1.00). In contrast, ChatGPT and Gemini followed closely with mean scores of 5.17 (Std = 0.96) and 5.10 (Std = 1.05), respectively. These results imply that, despite rating Taguette as a tool with worse UX and usability, users still recognized its effectiveness in aiding their performance, highlighting its potential as a trusted tool in practical applications. On the other hand, on the understanding subscale, which gauges users' confidence in their calibration of trust, ChatGPT scored the highest with a mean of 5.88 (Std = 0.80), followed by Gemini at 5.53 (Std = 0.89), and Taguette at 5.47 (Std = 1.03). The higher score for ChatGPT can be attributed to users' prior experience and familiarity with the tool, which likely enhanced their ability to calibrate their trust effectively. As presented in the demographic section of this study, participants had used ChatGPT more frequently than Gemini (no data was gathered for Taguette use), thus reinforcing their confidence in its performance.