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 Fake Door Test |  Product Discovery Concierge MVP |
|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-4 Wochen | 1-5 Tage | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 1-6 | Nutzertraffic | 3-10 Kunden |
Formatdifferent | Async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks |
Tags1 shared | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
