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 |  Architecture SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method) |  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. | SAAM helps teams judge an architecture’s suitability for selected tasks and changes. It is particularly useful for examining modifiability and comparing architecture alternatives with clear reasoning. | 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 | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-4 Wochen | Preparation, scenario analysis, and findings review; effort depends on scope | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 1-6 | Architecture experts and stakeholders for scenarios and weighting | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Domain functions mapped to components and connections, Quality attributes and evaluation criteria, Typical tasks and their effects on the architecture, Reasoned evaluation or comparison of alternatives | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | ArchitectureChangeAnalysisComparisonQuality | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
