View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Growth A/B Testing |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When two variants compete, discussions quickly decide by taste rather than effect. A/B Testing checks behavior under controlled conditions and separates real improvement from chance or expectation effects. | When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. | When a lot is assumed about a target group but little is seen jointly, empathy mapping makes knowledge and gaps directly comparable. The picture also shows which assumptions hold up and where evidence is missing. | When research notes, feedback, or observations sit unconnected side by side, affinity diagramming sorts the raw material into solid themes. Many individual points turn into patterns that make decisions and opportunities clearer. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-4 Wochen | 45-60 min | 30–60 min | 45–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-6 | 2-8 | 4-8 | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas |
Tagsno overlap | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause |