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 |  Decision Making Option Framing |  Growth A/B Testing |  Product Discovery MVP Test Matrix |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. | In early decisions, alternatives are often still vague, incomplete, or blended together. Option Framing brings every possibility into a comparable form and makes visible which variant actually fits the question. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45-60 min | 45-120 min | 1-4 Wochen | 45-75 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | 3-8 | 1-6 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Option Frames, Assumption Notes, Comparable Shortlist, Decision Inputs | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Test Matrix, Test Plan |
Tagsno overlap | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | OptionsDecision framingStrategyComparison | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryOptions |