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
Paper illustration of a decision table with criteria rows, weighted ratings, and a narrowly leading alternative.
Decision Making
Decision Matrix
Paper illustration for Smoke Test.
Product Discovery
Smoke Test
A/B Testing workspace showing the question, observations, and next decision.
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 several options collide with several criteria, comparison quickly becomes subjective. A Decision Matrix makes the trade-off visible and brings weighting, criteria, and options into a shared logic.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
LowMediumLowHigh
Timedifferent
20-45 min45-90 min1-5 Tage1-4 Wochen
Participantsdifferent
Based on research question2-8Nutzertraffic1-6
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncAsyncAsync
Outputdifferent
Content groups, Label set, IA hypothesesDecision Matrix, Scoring Rationale, Selected OptionInterest Metrics, Conversion Signal, Learning NoteExperiment results, Decision log, Learning summary
Tagsno overlap
Information architectureNavigationStructure
DecisionCriteriaScoringTradeoffs
ValidationExperimentsDemandGrowth
ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation
Add more methods