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 |  Delivery RAID Log |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | Helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow in concrete terms. It makes work, boundaries, and order steerable. The result is captured as a RAID Log and a source for status reporting. | 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 assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-4 Wochen | 30 min Setup, dann laufend | 1-2 h | 45-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-6 | 1-3 maintaining, briefing for everyone | 4-12 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | RAID Log, Status Report Source | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking |
Tagsno overlap | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | RiskTrackingStakeholdersGovernance | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation |