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
Paper illustration of Counter Metrics with its method-specific working model.
Product Strategy
Counter Metrics
A/B Testing workspace showing the question, observations, and next decision.
Growth
A/B Testing
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 a headline metric could mask side effects, it adds guardrail signals against unwanted outcomes. It connects customer value, product logic, and decision priorities. The result is captured as a counter-metric list and guardrail definitions.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 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
MediumLowHighLow
Timedifferent
1-2 Tage30-60 min1-4 Wochen1-5 Tage
Participantsdifferent
Based on research question2-61-6Nutzertraffic
Formatdifferent
AsyncWorkshop + asyncAsyncAsync
Outputdifferent
Findability Metrics, Path Analysis, Revised IACounter Metric List, Guardrail DefinitionsExperiment results, Decision log, Learning summaryInterest Metrics, Conversion Signal, Learning Note
Tagsno overlap
Information architectureNavigationFindability
MetricsMeasurementStrategyExperiments
ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation
ValidationExperimentsDemandGrowth
Add more methods