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 participant using a prototype while an observer takes notes beside a highlighted usability issue.
UX Research
Usability Testing
A/B Testing workspace showing the question, observations, and next decision.
Growth
A/B Testing
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 a product is built but people get stuck on tasks, usability testing shows the friction at concrete points. Observed use instead of self-report makes visible where orientation, understanding, or interaction breaks down.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.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
LowMediumHighLow
Timedifferent
20-45 min1-2 h je Session1-4 Wochen1-5 Tage
Participantsdifferent
Based on research questionBased on research question1-6Nutzertraffic
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncAsyncAsync
Outputdifferent
Content groups, Label set, IA hypothesesUsability Issues, Severity List, RecommendationsExperiment results, Decision log, Learning summaryInterest Metrics, Conversion Signal, Learning Note
Tagsno overlap
Information architectureNavigationStructure
ValidationUXPrototype
ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation
ValidationExperimentsDemandGrowth
Add more methods