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 |  Facilitation Nominal Group Technique |  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. | When loud voices could dominate a round, Nominal Group Technique protects individual thinking time from group effects. It collects ideas separately first and only then enables shared weighting. | 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 | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 45-60 min | 60-120 min | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | 5-12 | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary |
Tagsno overlap | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
