View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Growth A/B Testing |  Product Discovery MVP Test Matrix |  Product Discovery Riskiest Assumption Test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 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 several minimal variants compete to answer the same question, it makes comparing and choosing between them cleaner. It separates problem, assumption, solution, and evidence. The result is captured as a Test Matrix and a Test Plan. | When an idea hinges on one critical unknown, it prioritizes testing that exact piece of uncertainty first. It separates problem, assumption, solution, and evidence. The result is captured as a prioritized list of assumptions, a test plan, and a result report. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | High | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45–90 min | 1-4 Wochen | 45-75 min | 1-2 Wochen pro Iteration |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 1-6 | 2-8 | 2-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Test Matrix, Test Plan | Prioritized Assumption List, Test Plan, Results Report |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryOptions | ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryAssumptions |