Three-way comparisons are a convergent ideation method designers use to map their assumptions and tacit knowledge about familiar domains to new domains. They compare three related items in all possible combinations to uncover hidden attributes, understand the problem domain better and find insights to use innovatively.
“Resemblances are the shadows of differences. Different people see different similarities and similar differences.”
— Vladimir Nabokov, Author and poet whose works include “Lolita”
See how to use three-way comparisons to reveal powerful design opportunities, in this video with Alan Dix: Author of the bestselling book “Human-Computer Interaction” and Director of the Computational Foundry at Swansea University.
A vital skill underpinning a designer’s creativity is to bring tacit knowledge out into the open where it can be analyzed and insights shared. Sometimes, we have deep-held assumptions about designs, concepts, etc. These can range from an item’s smallest qualities up to critical factors of the mental model users adopt when encountering problems in context. If we take things for granted, we might overlook crucial points. That’s why it’s essential to isolate errors in how we envision design-related matters, and hopefully pinpoint previously unheard-of ways to access users.
Whenever we compare similar things, we can map what makes them distinct as we systematically examine each’s qualities. The simplest way is to compare two items; you can quickly compile a list by asking what’s similar and different. So, by identifying and discussing the distinctions between (e.g.) a menu on a webpage versus a phone, you can make sense of the various characteristics of each.
However, a three-way comparison can help you uncover far more. This approach comes from the repertory grid technique used to map personality traits. It’s beneficial for exposing and expressing qualities that might lie buried under assumptions and bias. For example, you might compare a dropdown menu with a cascading menu with a pie menu. By starting with “How is A like B but different from C?” you proceed through different orders of comparison (e.g., “How is C like A but different from B?”). Consequently, you’ll stretch beyond those obvious standard differences and engage the subjects more open-mindedly. In our video example, distinctions include:
Grapes are smaller – one serving contains more of them.
Apples are contiguous, whereas oranges are segmented.
Oranges are the “messiest” to eat.
Grapes are to wine as apples are to cider – the priority you give helps define how you see the world.
By making these distinctions, you expose the categories you’ve involved. Also, when you list these inherent qualities, categories, etc., it’s far easier to spot new differences more easily and (potentially) new contexts of use.
© Yu Siang and Interaction Design Foundation, CC BY-SA 3.0
1. Pick three designs/products in the domain you’re interested in. (One of these can be your own if you work in that domain.) They should be similar, so you/your users must put effort into considering differences between them. If, for example, you’re designing a new user interface menu and you want to understand the domain better, you can choose three existing menu types for comparison: dropdown versus cascading versus pie.
2. Compare each design to the other two. Here’s where you identify your own assumptions. Write down how each differs from the others. For example, from comparing how the dropdown differs from the cascading and pie menus, you notice a dropdown menu is horizontal and simpler.
Keep going as long as possible. If stuck, try considering a different dimension in which to compare the menus.
3. To make comparisons involving your users: Sitting down with one user at a time, show them the different designs and ask them to compare these: e.g., “Please list as many ways as you can think of how a dropdown menu is different from a cascading menu and a pie menu.”
Write down what each user lists as different. Users will likely soon get stuck, but encourage them to persevere by assuring them that no comparisons are silly. You can also encourage them to compare the designs in other dimensions which they haven’t considered yet. (Note: As users can find this hard, it’s best to keep adding users until no new attributes are mentioned.)
4. Consider the lists of attributes in relation to the domain you want to design for: After making comparisons, you’ll have three lists of attributes (one for each design). If you’ve involved users, you should combine the users’ lists, so you have a list for each design that summarizes what every user said.
Therefore, in the menu example, you have a list of attributes for each type of menu. Now go through each list and analyze how well this type of menu would work in your particular user interface. Do any attributes make it a good fit? Do any make it ill-suited? Have your users got any negative assumptions about a design that might make it problematic? Could you change the menu types somehow to make them fit better?
Overall, remember that making three-way comparisons means you can dig deep beneath the biases and assumptions that we usually never voice because they seem so self-evident. This might be the deciding factor behind whether you accidentally sink time into an unremarkable idea or you pinpoint vital insights early on to power a truly innovative design.
Photo by Pixabay from Pexels
Our Creativity course includes three-way comparisons (and template).
This Smashing Magazine piece presents insightful angles on making more detailed 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 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:
Present all three items. Make sure everyone understands their purpose.
Guide comparisons systematically. Ask, “How is A like B but different from C?” and rotate through all combinations.
Capture every observation, even minor or odd ones. These often reveal hidden assumptions.
Push for depth. Encourage the team to keep digging when the answers don’t come so quickly; that’s when the real insights emerge.
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.
Picking items that are too different: If the three things don’t share enough in common, comparisons feel forced, and insights stay shallow.
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.
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.
Remember, the more you learn about design, the more you make yourself valuable.
Improve your UX / UI Design skills and grow your career! Join IxDF now!
You earned your gift with a perfect score! Let us send it to you.
We've emailed your gift to name@email.com.
Improve your UX / UI Design skills and grow your career! Join IxDF now!
Here's the entire UX literature on 3-Way Comparisons by the Interaction Design Foundation, collated in one place:
We believe in Open Access and the democratization of knowledge. Unfortunately, world-class educational materials such as this page are normally hidden behind paywalls or in expensive textbooks.
If you want this to change, , link to us, or join us to help us democratize design knowledge!
