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 |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  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. | ATAM helps teams weigh architecture decisions when quality goals compete. The team considers business goals, stakeholder expectations, and technical decisions together. The evaluation shows which risks need further investigation. | 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 | High | High |
Timedifferent | 20-45 min | 45-60 min | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | Based on research question | 2-8 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Content groups, Label set, IA hypotheses | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary |
Tagsno overlap | Information architectureNavigationStructure | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation |