3-Way Comparisons

Three-way comparisons are powerful for exploring a problem domain because they push designers to uncover more dimensions, nuances, and insights than two-way comparisons ever could. When you compare only two items, you usually stop at obvious differences. Adding a third option forces you to see less obvious qualities and ask, “How is A like B but different from C?” and repeat that for every combination.

This approach, which comes from the repertory grid technique, helps you bring tacit knowledge—the unspoken assumptions you carry—into the open. For example, comparing a dropdown, cascading, and pie menu reveals layout differences and ideas about speed, effort, and learnability that shape design decisions.

By systematically mapping these qualities, designers gain a richer, deeper understanding of the domain, fueling better concepts and reducing blind spots.

Explore how the three-way method supports better brainstorming and other activities, since it opens space for creativity rather than forcing hard compromises.

Three-way comparisons help surface hidden assumptions in design by forcing you to look deeper. When you compare only two things, you often stop at the most apparent contrast, such as “a dropdown is simpler than a cascading menu.” However, adding a third item (e.g., a pie menu) pushes you to ask more challenging questions like, “How is A like B but different from C?”

This method, rooted in the repertory grid technique, exposes tacit knowledge—the unspoken assumptions designers carry about how things “should” work. For example, comparing three menu types might uncover beliefs about speed, space use, or learning curves that you didn’t realize shaped your thinking.

By systematically listing these qualities across all three, you create a clear map of overlooked attributes and biases, which can spark fresh insights and more innovative, evidence-based design choices.

Discover how assumptions can derail design efforts and how to manage them.

Three-way comparisons are a convergent ideation method because they help designers bring many insights into focus and refine them into clear, actionable directions. While divergent thinking generates a flood of ideas, convergent thinking filters and organizes them to help channel the best options.

By comparing three related items, such as a dropdown, cascading, and pie menu, you systematically examine how each is similar to one and different from the other. This process uncovers hidden attributes and assumptions and then combines them into structured knowledge.

Since you generate specific lists of qualities for each item, you move from abstract thinking to clear decisions about what to keep, combine, or discard. That’s what makes 3-way comparisons ideal for turning raw creativity into focused, innovative solutions.

Explore how to use convergent thinking to help arrive at better ideas and move the UX design process forward in the right direction.

Designers can expect richer, layered insights from 3-way comparisons that go far beyond surface observations. Comparing three items—for example, a dropdown, cascading, and pie menu—forces you to uncover:

• Hidden attributes (e.g., “dropdowns are simpler, but pie menus save space”)

• Tacit assumptions you didn’t realize shaped your thinking (e.g., that menus must be vertical)

• Subtle trade-offs between usability, speed, or effort that aren’t obvious in 2-way comparisons

• Fresh opportunities to mix or adapt elements from all three to create something better

As you repeatedly ask, “How is A like B but different from C?” you dig into dimensions you wouldn’t usually consider and can turn those insights into stronger design directions.

Discover core aspects of usability to keep this vital attribute in mind for whichever design ideas you find yourself moving towards.

To get the most from a 3-way comparison, pick three similar items to compare meaningfully, yet different enough to uncover insights. If they’re too similar, you won’t uncover much; if they’re too different, however, you’ll struggle to find connections.

For example, if you’re designing a new menu, you might choose a dropdown, cascading, and pie menu—all solve the same task but do it in distinct ways. Begin by selecting:

• Two familiar examples from the domain (to ground your analysis).

• One “stretch” example that pushes you to question assumptions.

This mix helps you and team members when ideating by surfacing hidden attributes, trade-offs, and new opportunities that can guide innovative solutions.

Consider how bias, like assumptions, can creep into the scene when design teams ideate and how to mitigate it.

You can run a 3-way comparison session by yourself by treating it like a structured brainstorming exercise. Begin by picking three similar but distinct items from your design domain, such as a dropdown, cascading, and pie menu.

Then, go through each combination and ask:

• “How is A like B but different from C?”

• “How is B like C but different from A?”

• “How is C like A but different from B?”

Write down every attribute you notice, from obvious (layout, size) to subtle (effort, learning curve). Keep pushing past your first answers; the deeper you go, the more hidden assumptions you’ll uncover.

Review your notes and highlight insights or trade-offs that could shape your next design decisions.

Enjoy our Master Class Harness Your Creativity to Design Better Products with Alan Dix, Professor, Author and Creativity Expert.

You act as a guide and organizer to facilitate a 3-way comparison session with a design team. First, pick three items similar enough to compare but sufficiently distinct to spark discussion, like three types of navigation menus or checkout flows.

Then, in the session:

1. Present all three items. Make sure everyone understands their purpose.

2. Guide comparisons systematically. Ask, “How is A like B but different from C?” and rotate through all combinations.

1. Capture every observation, even minor or odd ones. These often reveal hidden assumptions.

2. Push for depth. Encourage the team to keep digging when the answers don’t come so quickly; that’s when the real insights emerge.

1. Wrap up by clustering findings into themes and opportunities to inform next steps.

Discover helpful points in our article How to Select the Best Idea by the End of an Ideation Session.

After a 3-way comparison session, you will often have a messy list of attributes; however, that is where the “gold” is. Begin by grouping similar attributes into themes, such as “speed,” “clarity,” and “physical effort.” This clusters scattered notes into meaningful categories.

Next, spot patterns and trade-offs. For example, one menu might be “easiest to learn,” another “fastest to use,” and another “takes less space.” These contrasts reveal design tensions and opportunities for you and the team to blend strengths.

Last, but not least, prioritize insights by asking: Which attributes matter most to users? Which could inspire innovation? Doing that will turn raw lists into clear design directions rather than leave you with overwhelming clutter.

Grab a greater grasp of how to clean up findings in our article Affinity Diagrams: How to Cluster Your Ideas and Reveal Insights.

After a 3-way comparison session, you’ll have a list of attributes; however, to make them useful, you must link them to real user needs. Begin by grouping attributes into user-centered themes like speed, ease of learning, and accessibility. Then, ask: Which needs does this attribute support—or block?

For example, if a “cascading menu” is labeled “confusing” at first, connect that to the need for quick onboarding. If a “pie menu” is “faster once learned,” tie it to the need for efficiency over time.

Validate these connections with user research methods such as interviews or surveys and usability tests to confirm which attributes actually matter. This step helps you turn abstract observations into actionable insights that guide significant design choices.

Explore the world of accessible design, starting with this video, to understand why accessibility helps not only users with disabilities but all users.

Three-way comparisons don’t just work for menus or interfaces; they’re powerful for abstract ideas like workflows or user behaviors. Instead of comparing objects, you compare three processes, patterns, or habits.

For example, you might analyze three ways users book travel: a DIY approach, a curated package, and a hybrid assistant-led method. Ask: “How is A like B but different from C?” for every combination.

This approach surfaces hidden assumptions (such as “users expect instant confirmation” or “personalization feels valuable only at key steps”) and reveals qualities you’d otherwise miss. By mapping these insights, you see which workflow elements to keep, combine, or redesign, leading to smarter, user-centered solutions.

Discover important aspects of anticipating how the people who use products encounter and use them, with a strong grasp of their user behavior.

Beginners tend to make three common mistakes when running 3-way comparisons.

1. Picking items that are too different: If the three things don’t share enough in common, comparisons feel forced, and insights stay shallow.

2. Stopping at obvious differences: Many beginners only list surface traits (“this menu is blue, that one is gray”) instead of pushing for deeper qualities like effort, speed, or emotional impact.

1. Not exploring all combinations: Skipping prompts like “How is C like A but different from B?” means missing the subtle insights that only emerge when you look from every angle.

You can avoid these by choosing related items, digging past first impressions, and rotating through all comparisons. That’s when the method shows its true power.

Investigate helpful points about how to get the most out of ideation sessions in our article Understand the Elements and Thinking Modes that Create Fruitful Ideation Sessions.

Use 3-way comparisons when digging deeper into familiar territory—like exploring menu types, checkout flows, or user behaviors you already know a bit about. They are ideal for uncovering hidden assumptions, subtle trade-offs, and fresh opportunities.

However, sometimes another ideation tool works better. Three-way comparisons are a convergent technique. So, if you want to generate as many ideas as possible from scratch, go divergent and use brainstorming. And if you’re testing or narrowing ideas down, methods like usability testing or A/B testing might work better.

Think of 3-way comparisons as a bridge: they sit between wide-open ideation and final decision-making, perfect for organizing thinking and finding insights you might otherwise miss.

Discover deep details about divergent thinking and how it can drive ideation sessions to delightfully insightful destinations.

To keep a team engaged during a 3-way comparison session, even when it starts to feel repetitive, shift the energy and perspective throughout the exercise. Try these approaches:

• Rotate roles: Have different people lead each “How is A like B but different from C?” round so voices stay fresh.

• Change dimensions: When the team slows down, prompt new angles—“What about speed? Accessibility? Emotional impact?”

• Use visuals: Sketch comparisons on a whiteboard or sticky notes so progress feels visible and collaborative.

• Remind them of the goal: Reframe the repetition as digging for gold—the best insights often come after the obvious answers are out of the way.

The team stays motivated by breaking monotony with variety and purpose, and the insights keep coming. These comparisons reveal hidden attributes, such as speed, learning curve, or discoverability, and help you see trade-offs. Don’t use unrelated items like a search bar vs. a profile page because they won’t uncover meaningful distinctions.

Get a good idea of how to make the most of idea sessions in our article What is Ideation – and How to Prepare for Ideation Sessions.

Hawley, M. (2007, December 3). The repertory grid: Eliciting user experience comparisons in the customer’s voice. UXMatters. American Society for UX Professionals. https://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2007/12/the-repertory-grid-eliciting-user-experience-comparisons-in-the-customers-voice.php

This article explains how UX researchers use triadic comparisons to elicit user constructs. By asking participants how two design examples are alike and differ from the third, Hawley shows how unbiased, user‑driven constructs emerge—enabling richer insights in website and interface evaluation.

Thomas, B. (2010). Repertory grid: A missing UX technique? SlideShare. https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/rep-grid-the-missing-ux-technique/3866586

Thomas highlights the triadic elicitation stage of RGT: comparing three design artifacts (e.g., apps, interfaces) to identify how two are similar and one differs. This UX‑specific talk frames triads as powerful for revealing nuanced, user‑led perceptions that conventional surveys or interviews often miss.

Expressò UX Methods. (n.d.). Repertory grid technique—a UX evaluation method. Experience Research Society. https://experienceresearchsociety.org/ux-methods/repertory-grid-technique-rgt/

This UX methodology overview clarifies that triads are the foundational comparison in RGT. Users examine three design elements at a time, state similarities and differences, and create bipolar constructs—bridging qualitative meaning with quantitative ratings to support structured UX evaluation and design decisions.