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 |  UX Research Card Sorting |  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 content only makes sense internally and users can't find the structure again, card sorting exposes their mental order. Terms, groups, and naming are then aligned with the target group's expectations. | 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 | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 45-60 min | 1-2 Tage | 20-45 min | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | Based on research question | Based on research question | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Findability Metrics, Path Analysis, Revised IA | Content groups, Label set, IA hypotheses | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary |
Tagsno overlap | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | Information architectureNavigationFindability | Information architectureNavigationStructure | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation |