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 Tree Testing |  UX Research Contextual Inquiry |  Growth A/B Testing |
|---|---|---|---|
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 work processes are known only from accounts and the real context stays hidden, Contextual Inquiry makes behavior at the workplace visible. Observation and follow-up questions together show how people actually work, get interrupted, and improvise. | 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 | High |
Timedifferent | 1-2 Tage | 1-3 Wochen | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | Based on research question | 4-12 Beobachtungen | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Findability Metrics, Path Analysis, Revised IA | Field Notes, Workflow Insights, Pain Points | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary |
Tagsno overlap | Information architectureNavigationFindability | UX researchObservationContext | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
