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 Personas |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |  UX Design Customer Journey Canvas |  Growth A/B Testing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When target groups stay too vague and teams talk about the same people differently, personas create a shared, solid picture of usage. Condensed profiles make needs, contexts, and differences tangible enough for decisions. | When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. | When a journey needs to be understood across several phases, it arranges experience, touchpoints, and opportunities into one picture. It makes gaps and friction along the user path clear. | 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 | Medium | Medium | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 45-60 min | 1-3 h | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 2-8 | 3-10 | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Customer Journey Canvas, Pain Points, Experience Opportunities | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | JourneyCustomerService designCanvas | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation |