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
Affinity Diagramming
UX Research
Affinity Diagramming
A/B Testing workspace showing the question, observations, and next decision.
Growth
A/B Testing
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 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.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 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
MediumLowHighLow
Timedifferent
1-2 h je Session45–90 min1-4 Wochen1-5 Tage
Participantsdifferent
Based on research question3-101-6Nutzertraffic
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshopAsyncAsync
Outputdifferent
Usability Issues, Severity List, RecommendationsTheme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areasExperiment results, Decision log, Learning summaryInterest Metrics, Conversion Signal, Learning Note
Tagsno overlap
ValidationUXPrototype
SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause
ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation
ValidationExperimentsDemandGrowth
Add more methods