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
Paper illustration for Fake Door Test
Product Discovery
Fake Door Test
A/B Testing workspace showing the question, observations, and next decision.
Growth
A/B Testing
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 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.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
MediumMediumHigh
Timedifferent
120 min initial, dann laufend1-5 Tage1-4 Wochen
Participantsdifferent
3-6Nutzertraffic1-6
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncAsyncAsync
Outputdifferent
HEART-GSM Table, DashboardClick Data, Interest Signal, Learning DecisionExperiment results, Decision log, Learning summary
Tagsno overlap
MetricsUX researchMeasurementSatisfaction
ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery
ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation
Add more methods

Often compared together

Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.

Paper illustration for Smoke Test.
Product Discovery
Smoke Test
Paper illustration of Counter Metrics with its method-specific working model.
Product Strategy
Counter Metrics
Paper illustration of Experiment Canvas with a method-specific labelled workspace.
Product Discovery
Experiment Canvas
Paper illustration of a Learning Card with four fields for hypothesis, observation, insight, and action.
Product Discovery
Learning Card