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 |  Product Discovery Smoke Test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | When demand only needs to be roughly verified, it tests interest with minimal effort. It measures whether people would take a next step at all. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-4 Wochen | 45-60 min | 45-90 min | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 1-6 | 2-8 | 4-12 | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Starfish Board, Practice Changes, Experiments | Interest Metrics, Conversion Signal, Learning Note |
Tags1 shared | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | RetrospectiveImprovementExperimentsTeam | ValidationExperimentsDemandGrowth |