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 Double Diamond |  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. | For complex problems with a fuzzy situation, the method cleanly separates search space and decision. It first creates breadth in understanding and then focus in elaboration. This brings open questions, problem definition, and solution path into a traceable movement. | 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 | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-4 Wochen | Wochen bis Monate | 45-60 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-6 | 3-12 | 2-8 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Problem Statement, Solution Options, Prototypes, Deliverables per Phase | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan |
Tagsno overlap | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | ProcessDivergenceInnovation | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery |