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 two people facing each other, speech bubbles and an open interview notebook.
UX Research
User Interviews
A/B Testing workspace showing the question, observations, and next decision.
Growth
A/B Testing
Paper illustration for Smoke Test.
Product Discovery
Smoke Test
Paper illustration of MVP Test Matrix with a method-specific labelled workspace.
Product Discovery
MVP Test Matrix
Purposedifferent
When teams derive needs only from assumptions and real motives are missing, user interviews give direct access to behavior and meaning. Conversations from the target group's everyday life make patterns, tensions, and open questions solidly visible.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.When several minimal variants compete to answer the same question, it makes comparing and choosing between them cleaner. It separates problem, assumption, solution, and evidence. The result is captured as a Test Matrix and a Test Plan.
Complexitydifferent
LowHighLowMedium
Timedifferent
30–60 min per interview1-4 Wochen1-5 Tage45-75 min
Participantsdifferent
1 participant per interview1-6Nutzertraffic2-8
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncAsyncAsyncWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Interview Notes, Themes, Insight SummaryExperiment results, Decision log, Learning summaryInterest Metrics, Conversion Signal, Learning NoteTest Matrix, Test Plan
Tagsno overlap
QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery
ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation
ValidationExperimentsDemandGrowth
ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryOptions
Add more methods