View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Product Discovery Context Canvas |  Growth A/B Testing |  UX Research Contextual Inquiry |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When an environment of users, systems, and constraints is hard to grasp, it puts the context compactly on the table. It creates a clear reading of influence, boundary, and dependency. | 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 work processes are known only from accounts and the real context stays hidden, Contextual Inquiry makes behavior at the workplace visible. Observation and follow-up questions together show how people actually work, get interrupted, and improvise. | When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | High | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 1-4 Wochen | 1-3 Wochen | 45-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 1-6 | 4-12 Beobachtungen | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Context canvas, Open questions, Shared context notes | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Field Notes, Workflow Insights, Pain Points | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking |
Tagsno overlap | ContextFramingRequirementsCanvas | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | UX researchObservationContext | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation |