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 Dot Estimation |
|---|---|---|---|
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 size or effort can only be estimated roughly, Dot Estimation condenses the group's experience into a quick range. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as an Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, and Discussion Targets. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-4 Wochen | 45-60 min | 5-20 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-6 | 2-8 | 3-20 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, Discussion Targets |
Tagsno overlap | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | EstimationEffortRisk |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
