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 |  Innovation Contradiction Analysis |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 a system should improve while another measure suffers as a result, the method makes the underlying conflict precisely formulable. It separates the desired effect from its side effect. This makes solutions possible that address the contradiction deliberately instead of half-heartedly. | When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-4 Wochen | 45-90 min | 60-120 min | 45-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-6 | 2-8 | 2-8 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | Contradiction Statement, Abstraction Notes, Solution Principles, Concept Ideas | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking |
Tagsno overlap | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | ContradictionsInnovationProblem solving | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation |