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 Concierge MVP |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |  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. | 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. | 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 assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-4 Wochen | 1-4 Wochen | 45-90 min | 45-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-6 | 3-10 Kunden | 2-8 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking |
Tagsno overlap | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation |