methodatlas
Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Criterion
Paper illustration showing three sorted card stacks and an open question about a possible group.
UX Research
Card Sorting
A/B Testing workspace showing the question, observations, and next decision.
Growth
A/B Testing
Paper illustration of two considered options leading to a decision record with a marked status and visible consequences.
Architecture
Architecture Decision Record
Paper illustration for Smoke Test.
Product Discovery
Smoke Test
Purposedifferent
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.An ADR permanently records an architecture decision with context, trade-offs, and consequence. It creates continuity for later changes because the decision path stays traceable.When demand only needs to be roughly verified, it tests interest with minimal effort. It measures whether people would take a next step at all.
Complexitydifferent
LowHighLowLow
Timedifferent
20-45 min1-4 Wochen15-45 min1-5 Tage
Participantsdifferent
Based on research question1-61-3Nutzertraffic
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncAsyncAsyncAsync
Outputdifferent
Content groups, Label set, IA hypothesesExperiment results, Decision log, Learning summaryADR File, Decision Log, RationaleInterest Metrics, Conversion Signal, Learning Note
Tagsno overlap
Information architectureNavigationStructure
ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation
ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance
ValidationExperimentsDemandGrowth
Add more methods