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 Expectation Mapping |  Product Discovery Experiment Canvas |  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. | When roles, interfaces, or projects fail because of differing expectations, Expectation Mapping surfaces these differences. It shows what each side takes for granted and where the pictures diverge. | When experiments become unreadable after the fact, it arranges hypothesis, signal, and learning goal on a single canvas. It separates problem, assumption, solution, and evidence. The result is captured as a Completed Experiment Canvas and a Success Metric. | 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 | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-4 Wochen | 45-90 min | 30-60 min | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 1-6 | 3-12 | 1-5 | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements | Completed Experiment Canvas, Success Metric | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam | ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryHypothesis | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |