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 Stakeholder Mapping |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 an initiative depends on many people, interests, and power dynamics, Stakeholder Mapping systematically orders the environment. It shows who influences, who is affected, and where relationship management or safeguarding matters first. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45-60 min | 1-4 Wochen | 60–90 min | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | 1-6 | 2-8 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions |
Tagsno overlap | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation |