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 |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Facilitation Power Interest Grid |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. | 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 many stakeholders compete for attention at once, the Power Interest Grid sorts them by influence and stake. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Power Interest Grid and a stakeholder-specific strategy. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-4 Wochen | 45-60 min | 1-2 h | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-6 | 2-8 | 4-12 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Power Interest Grid, Strategy per Stakeholder |
Tagsno overlap | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentPlanning |