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 Empathy Mapping |  Growth A/B Testing |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |  Product Discovery Smoke Test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a lot is assumed about a target group but little is seen jointly, empathy mapping makes knowledge and gaps directly comparable. The picture also shows which assumptions hold up and where evidence is missing. | 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 a group needs a solid decision without outvoting individual factions, a Consensus Workshop creates a negotiable common ground. It makes agreement, reservations, and open tensions discussable at the same time. | 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 | Low | High | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 1-4 Wochen | 1-3 h | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 1-6 | 5-30 | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Interest Metrics, Conversion Signal, Learning Note |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | ValidationExperimentsDemandGrowth |