View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Tree TestingSAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method)ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)Card Sorting
| Criterion |  UX Research Tree Testing |  Architecture SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method) |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  UX Research Card Sorting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | SAAM helps teams judge an architecture’s suitability for selected tasks and changes. It is particularly useful for examining modifiability and comparing architecture alternatives with clear reasoning. | ATAM helps teams weigh architecture decisions when quality goals compete. The team considers business goals, stakeholder expectations, and technical decisions together. The evaluation shows which risks need further investigation. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-2 Tage | Preparation, scenario analysis, and findings review; effort depends on scope | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 20-45 min |
Participantsdifferent | Based on research question | Architecture experts and stakeholders for scenarios and weighting | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | Based on research question |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Findability Metrics, Path Analysis, Revised IA | Domain functions mapped to components and connections, Quality attributes and evaluation criteria, Typical tasks and their effects on the architecture, Reasoned evaluation or comparison of alternatives | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Content groups, Label set, IA hypotheses |
Tagsno overlap | Information architectureNavigationFindability | ArchitectureChangeAnalysisComparisonQuality | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | Information architectureNavigationStructure |