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 |  Innovation Design Sprint |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 the product question is unclear and time pressure is high, the method takes a team from an open idea to a testable solution. It connects problem understanding, decision, and learning in one compact format, lowering the risk of spending a lot of energy on a mere guess. | When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | High | High | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-4 Wochen | 4-5 Tage | 45-60 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-6 | 5-8 | 2-8 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Prototype, Test Findings, Decision Rationale | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan |
Tagsno overlap | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | Design sprintPrototypeValidationInnovation | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery |