methodatlas
Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Criterion
Paper illustration of HEART Framework with its method-specific working model.
UX Research
HEART Framework
A/B Testing workspace showing the question, observations, and next decision.
Growth
A/B Testing
Paper illustration of Riskiest Assumption Test with a method-specific labelled workspace.
Product Discovery
Riskiest Assumption Test
Paper illustration for Fake Door Test
Product Discovery
Fake Door Test
Purposedifferent
Helps clarify observations, needs, and patterns in concrete terms. It groups observations into patterns, questions, and decisions. The result is captured as a HEART-GSM table and dashboard.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 an idea hinges on one critical unknown, it prioritizes testing that exact piece of uncertainty first. It separates problem, assumption, solution, and evidence. The result is captured as a prioritized list of assumptions, a test plan, and a result report.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
MediumHighMediumMedium
Timedifferent
120 min initial, dann laufend1-4 Wochen1-2 Wochen pro Iteration1-5 Tage
Participantsdifferent
3-61-62-6Nutzertraffic
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncAsyncWorkshop + asyncAsync
Outputdifferent
HEART-GSM Table, DashboardExperiment results, Decision log, Learning summaryPrioritized Assumption List, Test Plan, Results ReportClick Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision
Tagsno overlap
MetricsUX researchMeasurementSatisfaction
ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation
ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryAssumptions
ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery
Add more methods