View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |  UX Research Tree Testing |  Growth A/B Testing |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. | When a navigation exists but search paths still fail, tree testing checks findability without visual distraction. The method shows whether labels, levels, and paths really lead to the intended destination. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 45-60 min | 1-2 Tage | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | Based on research question | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Findability Metrics, Path Analysis, Revised IA | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary |
Tagsno overlap | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | Information architectureNavigationFindability | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
