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 |  Facilitation Dot Estimation |  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 size or effort can only be estimated roughly, Dot Estimation condenses the group's experience into a quick range. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as an Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, and Discussion Targets. | 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 |
Timedifferent | 1-4 Wochen | 5-20 min | 45-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-6 | 3-20 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, Discussion Targets | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking |
Tagsno overlap | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | EstimationEffortRisk | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
