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 User Interviews |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Product Discovery Test Card |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | ATAM helps teams weigh architecture decisions when quality goals compete. The team considers business goals, stakeholder expectations, and technical decisions together. The evaluation shows which risks need further investigation. | The Test Card turns a critical assumption into a testable claim and specifies in advance which result counts as success. | When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | High | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 20-35 min | 45-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 1-5 | 2-8 |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Test Card with a pre-set threshold | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryHypothesis | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation |