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 hypothetical failure makes concrete risks, signals, and fitting mitigations visible.
Decision Making
Pre-Mortem
Paper illustration for Smoke Test.
Product Discovery
Smoke Test
A/B Testing workspace showing the question, observations, and next decision.
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.In early initiatives with many uncertainties, planning quickly turns too optimistic. A pre-mortem makes the expected failure visible in advance and sharpens the view of causes, gaps, and countermeasures.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 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
MediumLowLowHigh
Timedifferent
1-2 Tage20–45 min1-5 Tage1-4 Wochen
Participantsdifferent
Based on research questionSmall cross-functional groupNutzertraffic1-6
Formatdifferent
AsyncWorkshopAsyncAsync
Outputdifferent
Findability Metrics, Path Analysis, Revised IARisk list, Mitigation plan, Assumption logInterest Metrics, Conversion Signal, Learning NoteExperiment results, Decision log, Learning summary
Tagsno overlap
Information architectureNavigationFindability
RiskDecisionFailurePlanning
ValidationExperimentsDemandGrowth
ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation
Add more methods