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 Contextual Inquiry |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |  Growth A/B Testing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | When statements, evidence, and counterarguments get mixed up, a debate quickly loses its structure. Argument Mapping breaks a thesis down into its reasoning and makes visible what it really rests on. | 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 | Medium | Medium | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen | 45-60 min | 1-3 h | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 Beobachtungen | 2-8 | 1-8 | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Field Notes, Workflow Insights, Pain Points | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary |
Tagsno overlap | UX researchObservationContext | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | SensemakingDecisionRationale | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation |