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 |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Product Discovery Smoke Test |  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. | 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 demand only needs to be roughly verified, it tests interest with minimal effort. It measures whether people would take a next step at all. | 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 | High | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 20-45 min | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 1-5 Tage | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | Based on research question | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | Nutzertraffic | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Content groups, Label set, IA hypotheses | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Interest Metrics, Conversion Signal, Learning Note | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary |
Tagsno overlap | Information architectureNavigationStructure | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | ValidationExperimentsDemandGrowth | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation |