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
Surveys method illustration showing its working structure
UX Research
Surveys
A/B Testing workspace showing the question, observations, and next decision.
Growth
A/B Testing
Paper illustration of a calm four-quadrant Assumption Map with hypothesis cards and emphasis on important assumptions with little evidence.
Product Discovery
Assumption Mapping
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 topic needs to be validated broadly and many people can answer the same question, surveys gather structured feedback in a scalable form. Answers become comparable and segmentable instead of remaining merely anecdotal.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 assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first.
Complexitydifferent
MediumMediumHighMedium
Timedifferent
1-2 Tage3-14 Tage1-4 Wochen45-60 min
Participantsdifferent
Based on research question50+1-62-8
Formatdifferent
AsyncAsyncAsyncWorkshop + async
Outputdifferent
Findability Metrics, Path Analysis, Revised IASurvey Results, Charts, Segment InsightsExperiment results, Decision log, Learning summaryAssumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking
Tagsno overlap
Information architectureNavigationFindability
QuantitativeResearchValidation
ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation
AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation
Add more methods