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 |  UX Research Usability Testing |  Growth A/B Testing |  Innovation Design Sprint |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 a product is built but people get stuck on tasks, usability testing shows the friction at concrete points. Observed use instead of self-report makes visible where orientation, understanding, or interaction breaks down. | 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 the product question is unclear and time pressure is high, the method takes a team from an open idea to a testable solution. It connects problem understanding, decision, and learning in one compact format, lowering the risk of spending a lot of energy on a mere guess. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | High | High |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 1-2 h je Session | 1-4 Wochen | 4-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | Based on research question | 1-6 | 5-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Usability Issues, Severity List, Recommendations | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Prototype, Test Findings, Decision Rationale |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | ValidationUXPrototype | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | Design sprintPrototypeValidationInnovation |