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 |  Agile Starfish Retrospective |
|---|---|---|---|
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 improvement options need to be sorted more finely than just start and stop, it brings observations into clear kinds of action. This makes visible what should be done more, less, newly, or continued. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-4 Wochen | 45-60 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-6 | 2-8 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Starfish Board, Practice Changes, Experiments |
Tags1 shared | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | RetrospectiveImprovementExperimentsTeam |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
