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 Empathy Mapping |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Product Discovery Experiment Canvas |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | When experiments become unreadable after the fact, it arranges hypothesis, signal, and learning goal on a single canvas. It separates problem, assumption, solution, and evidence. The result is captured as a Completed Experiment Canvas and a Success Metric. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-4 Wochen | 30–60 min | 45–90 min | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-6 | 4-8 | 3-10 | 1-5 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Completed Experiment Canvas, Success Metric |
Tagsno overlap | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryHypothesis |