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 Pretotyping |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |  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. | Pretotyping clarifies whether a customer problem and solution idea create enough real demand. It separates problem, assumption, solution, and evidence, and captures the result as a pretotyping sketch, test setup, and conversion data. | 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. | 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 | Stunden bis wenige Tage | 45-90 min | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 1-6 | 1-4 | 2-8 | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Pretotyping sketch, Test setup, Conversion data, Go or no-go decision | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | ValidationDemandMVP | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |