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 Pre-Mortem |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |  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. | In early initiatives with many uncertainties, planning quickly turns too optimistic. A pre-mortem makes the expected failure visible in advance and sharpens the view of causes, gaps, and countermeasures. | 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. | 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 | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-4 Wochen | 20–45 min | 1-5 Tage | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-6 | Small cross-functional group | Nutzertraffic | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Risk list, Mitigation plan, Assumption log | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan |
Tagsno overlap | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | RiskDecisionFailurePlanning | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery |