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 |  Decision Making Option Framing |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Product Discovery MVP Test Matrix |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | In early decisions, alternatives are often still vague, incomplete, or blended together. Option Framing brings every possibility into a comparable form and makes visible which variant actually fits the question. | When several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable. | When several minimal variants compete to answer the same question, it makes comparing and choosing between them cleaner. It separates problem, assumption, solution, and evidence. The result is captured as a Test Matrix and a Test Plan. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-4 Wochen | 45-120 min | 1-2 h | 45-75 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-6 | 3-8 | 4-12 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Option Frames, Assumption Notes, Comparable Shortlist, Decision Inputs | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Test Matrix, Test Plan |
Tagsno overlap | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | OptionsDecision framingStrategyComparison | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryOptions |