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 |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |  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. | 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. | 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 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 | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-4 Wochen | Stunden bis wenige Tage | 1-5 Tage | 45-75 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-6 | 1-4 | Nutzertraffic | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Pretotyping sketch, Test setup, Conversion data, Go or no-go decision | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision | Test Matrix, Test Plan |
Tags1 shared | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | ValidationDemandMVP | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery | ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryOptions |