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 participant using a prototype while an observer takes notes beside a highlighted usability issue.
UX Research
Usability Testing
A/B Testing workspace showing the question, observations, and next decision.
Growth
A/B Testing
Paper illustration of two considered options leading to a decision record with a marked status and visible consequences.
Architecture
Architecture Decision Record
Paper illustration for Smoke Test.
Product Discovery
Smoke Test
Purposedifferent
When a product is built but people get stuck on tasks, usability testing shows the friction at concrete points. Observed use instead of self-report makes visible where orientation, understanding, or interaction breaks down.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.An ADR permanently records an architecture decision with context, trade-offs, and consequence. It creates continuity for later changes because the decision path stays traceable.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
MediumHighLowLow
Timedifferent
1-2 h je Session1-4 Wochen15-45 min1-5 Tage
Participantsdifferent
Based on research question1-61-3Nutzertraffic
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncAsyncAsyncAsync
Outputdifferent
Usability Issues, Severity List, RecommendationsExperiment results, Decision log, Learning summaryADR File, Decision Log, RationaleInterest Metrics, Conversion Signal, Learning Note
Tagsno overlap
ValidationUXPrototype
ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation
ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance
ValidationExperimentsDemandGrowth
Add more methods