View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  UX Research Usability Testing |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |  Growth A/B Testing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. | 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 | Medium | Low | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h je Session | 45–90 min | 45-60 min | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | Based on research question | 3-10 | 2-8 | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Usability Issues, Severity List, Recommendations | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary |
Tagsno overlap | ValidationUXPrototype | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation |