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 Contextual Inquiry |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |
|---|---|---|---|
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 work processes are known only from accounts and the real context stays hidden, Contextual Inquiry makes behavior at the workplace visible. Observation and follow-up questions together show how people actually work, get interrupted, and improvise. | When demand is still unclear, it measures interest in a feature before it is built. It separates real behavior from polite agreement and deliberately keeps build effort small. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-4 Wochen | 1-3 Wochen | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 1-6 | 4-12 Beobachtungen | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Field Notes, Workflow Insights, Pain Points | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | UX researchObservationContext | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
