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 |  Knowledge Modeling Concept Mapping |  Product Discovery Smoke Test |  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. | 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 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 | Medium | Medium | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen | 1-2 h | 1-5 Tage | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 Beobachtungen | 1-8 | Nutzertraffic | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Field Notes, Workflow Insights, Pain Points | Concept Map, Relationship Labels, Knowledge Gaps | Interest Metrics, Conversion Signal, Learning Note | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary |
Tagsno overlap | UX researchObservationContext | KnowledgeConceptsMappingSensemaking | ValidationExperimentsDemandGrowth | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation |