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 |  Product Discovery Test Card |  Product Discovery Fake Door 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. | The Test Card turns a critical assumption into a testable claim and specifies in advance which result counts as success. | When demand is still unclear, it measures interest in a feature before it is built. It separates real behavior from polite agreement and deliberately keeps build effort small. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | High | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 1-4 Wochen | 20-35 min | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 1-6 | 1-5 | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Test Card with a pre-set threshold | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryHypothesis | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |