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 a branching category tree with a highlighted search path and possible dead ends.
UX Research
Tree Testing
A/B Testing workspace showing the question, observations, and next decision.
Growth
A/B Testing
Paper illustration showing three sorted card stacks and an open question about a possible group.
UX Research
Card Sorting
Paper illustration for Smoke Test.
Product Discovery
Smoke Test
Purposedifferent
When a navigation exists but search paths still fail, tree testing checks findability without visual distraction. The method shows whether labels, levels, and paths really lead to the intended destination.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 content only makes sense internally and users can't find the structure again, card sorting exposes their mental order. Terms, groups, and naming are then aligned with the target group's expectations.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.
Complexitydifferent
MediumHighLowLow
Timedifferent
1-2 Tage1-4 Wochen20-45 min1-5 Tage
Participantsdifferent
Based on research question1-6Based on research questionNutzertraffic
Formatdifferent
AsyncAsyncWorkshop + asyncAsync
Outputdifferent
Findability Metrics, Path Analysis, Revised IAExperiment results, Decision log, Learning summaryContent groups, Label set, IA hypothesesInterest Metrics, Conversion Signal, Learning Note
Tagsno overlap
Information architectureNavigationFindability
ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation
Information architectureNavigationStructure
ValidationExperimentsDemandGrowth
Add more methods