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 |  Product Discovery MVP Test Matrix |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | 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 | Medium | High | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45-60 min | 1-4 Wochen | 45-75 min | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | 1-6 | 2-8 | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Test Matrix, Test Plan | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tags2 shared | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryOptions | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |