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 |  UX Research Card Sorting |  Innovation Design Sprint |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 content only makes sense internally and users can't find the structure again, card sorting exposes their mental order. Terms, groups, and naming are then aligned with the target group's expectations. | When the product question is unclear and time pressure is high, the method takes a team from an open idea to a testable solution. It connects problem understanding, decision, and learning in one compact format, lowering the risk of spending a lot of energy on a mere guess. | When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Low | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-4 Wochen | 20-45 min | 4-5 Tage | 45-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-6 | Based on research question | 5-8 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Content groups, Label set, IA hypotheses | Prototype, Test Findings, Decision Rationale | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking |
Tagsno overlap | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | Information architectureNavigationStructure | Design sprintPrototypeValidationInnovation | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation |