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 |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Agile ROAM Board |  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 several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable. | When work needs to move between different states or columns, it makes that movement and its handoffs legible. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as a ROAM Board and an Owner List. | When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-4 Wochen | 1-2 h | 20-40 min initial, dann laufend | 45-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-6 | 4-12 | 3-15 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | ROAM Board, Owner List | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking |
Tagsno overlap | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | RiskAgileTrackingAlignment | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation |