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 |  Systems Thinking System Dynamics Simulation |  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. | System Dynamics Simulation makes assumptions about time, delay, and feedback testable through experiments. It draws relationships, patterns, and feedback loops. The result is captured as a simulation model and scenario reports. | 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 | High | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-4 Wochen | Mehrere Tage bis Wochen | 45-90 min | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 1-6 | 1-5 Modellierende, Stakeholder asynchron | 2-8 | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Async | Async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Simulation Model, Scenario Reports | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | Systems thinkingDynamicsSimulationAnalysis | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |