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 Empathy Mapping |  Growth A/B Testing |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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 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 research notes, feedback, or observations sit unconnected side by side, affinity diagramming sorts the raw material into solid themes. Many individual points turn into patterns that make decisions and opportunities clearer. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-2 Tage | 30–60 min | 1-4 Wochen | 45–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | Based on research question | 4-8 | 1-6 | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Findability Metrics, Path Analysis, Revised IA | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas |
Tagsno overlap | Information architectureNavigationFindability | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause |