View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Growth A/B Testing |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | When research notes, feedback, or observations sit unconnected side by side, affinity diagramming sorts the raw material into solid themes. Many individual points turn into patterns that make decisions and opportunities clearer. | Plans often contain assumptions that were never openly stated and remain dangerous precisely because of that. Assumption Surfacing makes these silent premises visible and prioritizes which of them carry the initiative or could sink it. | When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-4 Wochen | 45–90 min | 45-90 min | 45-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-6 | 3-10 | 2-8 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking |
Tagsno overlap | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation |