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 Smoke Test |  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. | 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. | 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 | 1-5 Tage | 45–90 min | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | Nutzertraffic | 3-10 | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Interest Metrics, Conversion Signal, Learning Note | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | ValidationExperimentsDemandGrowth | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation |