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 |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Growth A/B Testing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. | ATAM helps teams weigh architecture decisions when quality goals compete. The team considers business goals, stakeholder expectations, and technical decisions together. The evaluation shows which risks need further investigation. | 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 | Low | Medium | High | High |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 45-60 min | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 2-8 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation |