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 Card Sorting |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Growth A/B Testing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 20-45 min | 45-60 min | 45–90 min | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | Based on research question | 2-8 | 3-10 | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Content groups, Label set, IA hypotheses | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary |
Tagsno overlap | Information architectureNavigationStructure | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation |