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 |  Knowledge Modeling IBIS |  Growth A/B Testing |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | IBIS structures thinking about complex questions as a sequence of issues, ideas, and arguments. The method keeps discussions open without forcing them into premature consensus. | 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 statements, evidence, and counterarguments get mixed up, a debate quickly loses its structure. Argument Mapping breaks a thesis down into its reasoning and makes visible what it really rests on. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 1-3 h | 1-4 Wochen | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 2-8 | 1-6 | 1-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Issue Map, Positions, Argument Notes | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | RationaleKnowledgeDecision | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | SensemakingDecisionRationale |