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
Paper illustration for Smoke Test.
Product Discovery
Smoke Test
Paper illustration of two considered options leading to a decision record with a marked status and visible consequences.
Architecture
Architecture Decision Record
A/B Testing workspace showing the question, observations, and next decision.
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 demand only needs to be roughly verified, it tests interest with minimal effort. It measures whether people would take a next step at all.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 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
MediumLowLowHigh
Timedifferent
1-2 h je Session1-5 Tage15-45 min1-4 Wochen
Participantsdifferent
Based on research questionNutzertraffic1-31-6
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncAsyncAsyncAsync
Outputdifferent
Usability Issues, Severity List, RecommendationsInterest Metrics, Conversion Signal, Learning NoteADR File, Decision Log, RationaleExperiment results, Decision log, Learning summary
Tagsno overlap
ValidationUXPrototype
ValidationExperimentsDemandGrowth
ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance
ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation
Add more methods