View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |  Growth A/B Testing |  Facilitation Dot Estimation |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. | 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. | When size or effort can only be estimated roughly, Dot Estimation condenses the group's experience into a quick range. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as an Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, and Discussion Targets. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-60 min | 1-4 Wochen | 5-20 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | 1-6 | 3-20 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, Discussion Targets | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan |
Tagsno overlap | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | EstimationEffortRisk | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery |