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
Paper illustration of ICE Scoring with its method-specific working model.
Product Strategy
ICE Scoring
Paper illustration of a Test Card with four fields for hypothesis, test, metric, and success threshold.
Product Discovery
Test Card
A/B Testing workspace showing the question, observations, and next decision.
Growth
A/B Testing
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 ideas need sorting quickly, it condenses impact, confidence, and effort into one compact score. It connects customer value, product logic, and decision priorities. The result is captured as an ICE table and top-ideas list.The Test Card turns a critical assumption into a testable claim and specifies in advance which result counts as success.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
LowLowLowHigh
Timedifferent
30–60 min per interview30-60 min20-35 min1-4 Wochen
Participantsdifferent
1 participant per interview2-81-51-6
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncAsync
Outputdifferent
Interview Notes, Themes, Insight SummaryICE Table, Top Idea ListTest Card with a pre-set thresholdExperiment results, Decision log, Learning summary
Tagsno overlap
QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery
PrioritizationScoringGrowthDecision
ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryHypothesis
ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation
Add more methods