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 User Interviews |  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 teams derive needs only from assumptions and real motives are missing, user interviews give direct access to behavior and meaning. Conversations from the target group's everyday life make patterns, tensions, and open questions solidly visible. | 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 | 30–60 min per interview | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-6 | 4-8 | 1 participant per interview | 1-5 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Completed Experiment Canvas, Success Metric |
Tagsno overlap | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryHypothesis |