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 |  Operations PDCA Cycle |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  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. | For an improvement that still has to prove itself in everyday work, the method runs it through small learning loops. It connects planning, checking, and standardization into a repeatable learning mode. | When research notes, feedback, or observations sit unconnected side by side, affinity diagramming sorts the raw material into solid themes. Many individual points turn into patterns that make decisions and opportunities clearer. | 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 | Low | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 1 h bis mehrere Wochen | 45–90 min | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 1-8 | 3-10 | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | PDCA Log, Experiment Plan, Learning Outcome, Standard Change | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | Continuous improvementLeanExperiments | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation |