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 |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Product Discovery Smoke Test |  Product Discovery Fake Door 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. | ATAM helps teams weigh architecture decisions when quality goals compete. The team considers business goals, stakeholder expectations, and technical decisions together. The evaluation shows which risks need further investigation. | 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. | When demand is still unclear, it measures interest in a feature before it is built. It separates real behavior from polite agreement and deliberately keeps build effort small. |
Complexitydifferent | High | High | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-4 Wochen | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 1-5 Tage | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 1-6 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | Nutzertraffic | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Interest Metrics, Conversion Signal, Learning Note | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | ValidationExperimentsDemandGrowth | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |