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
Decision Tree method illustration showing its working structure
Decision Making
Decision Tree
Paper illustration for Fake Door Test
Product Discovery
Fake Door 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.For decisions with follow-on paths and dependencies, a linear comparison is often not enough. A Decision Tree shows how options branch under conditions and which consequences hang on each branch.When demand is still unclear, it measures interest in a feature before it is built. It separates real behavior from polite agreement and deliberately keeps build effort small.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
LowMediumMediumMedium
Timedifferent
30–60 min per interview30-90 min1-5 Tage45-75 min
Participantsdifferent
1 participant per interview1-6Nutzertraffic2-8
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncAsyncWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Interview Notes, Themes, Insight SummaryDecision Tree, Option Map, Assumption ListClick Data, Interest Signal, Learning DecisionTest Matrix, Test Plan
Tagsno overlap
QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery
DecisionTreeOptions
ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery
ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryOptions
Add more methods