View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Product Discovery Smoke Test |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Product Discovery Experiment Canvas |  Growth A/B Testing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When demand only needs to be roughly verified, it tests interest with minimal effort. It measures whether people would take a next step at all. | 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 experiments become unreadable after the fact, it arranges hypothesis, signal, and learning goal on a single canvas. It separates problem, assumption, solution, and evidence. The result is captured as a Completed Experiment Canvas and a Success Metric. | 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 | Low | Low | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 1-5 Tage | 30–60 min | 30-60 min | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | Nutzertraffic | 4-8 | 1-5 | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Interest Metrics, Conversion Signal, Learning Note | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Completed Experiment Canvas, Success Metric | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary |
Tagsno overlap | ValidationExperimentsDemandGrowth | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryHypothesis | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation |