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 |  UX Research User Interviews |  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. | When teams derive needs only from assumptions and real motives are missing, user interviews give direct access to behavior and meaning. Conversations from the target group's everyday life make patterns, tensions, and open questions solidly visible. | 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 | 30–60 min per interview | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 1-6 | 1 participant per interview | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |