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 |  Innovation Design Thinking |  Innovation Design Sprint |  Growth A/B Testing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. | For complex user problems with an uncertain cause, the method connects observation, interpretation, and experiment into a learning cycle. It keeps the focus on real needs and avoids premature solution language. This produces robust decisions for product and service. | When the product question is unclear and time pressure is high, the method takes a team from an open idea to a testable solution. It connects problem understanding, decision, and learning in one compact format, lowering the risk of spending a lot of energy on a mere guess. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | High | High |
Timedifferent | 45-60 min | 1 Tag bis mehrere Wochen | 4-5 Tage | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | 4-10 | 5-8 | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Problem Statement, Prototype, Test Learnings | Prototype, Test Findings, Decision Rationale | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary |
Tagsno overlap | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | InnovationPrototypeResearch | Design sprintPrototypeValidationInnovation | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation |