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 |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |  Product Discovery Concierge MVP |
|---|---|---|---|
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. | Plans often contain assumptions that were never openly stated and remain dangerous precisely because of that. Assumption Surfacing makes these silent premises visible and prioritizes which of them carry the initiative or could sink it. | When an idea can first fail or grow through genuine hands-on support, it relies on manual work instead of automation. It shows whether user value holds up even under manual execution. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-4 Wochen | 45-90 min | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 1-6 | 2-8 | 3-10 Kunden |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks |
Tagsno overlap | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
