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 |  Knowledge Modeling Concept 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. | Concept Mapping arranges terms and relationships in a network that makes subject-matter connections tangible. It fits when a topic needs to be understood structurally rather than linearly. | 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 | 1-2 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 | Concept Map, Relationship Labels, Knowledge Gaps | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary |
Tagsno overlap | UX researchObservationContext | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | KnowledgeConceptsMappingSensemaking | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation |