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 |  Architecture Risk Storming |  Delivery Cost of Delay |  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. | Helps clarify architecture context, options, and consequences in concrete terms. It organizes technical context, alternatives, and consequences. The result is captured as an Annotated Diagram, a Prioritized Risk List, and an Action Backlog. | Helps clarify scope, order, and delivery flow in concrete terms. It makes work, constraints, and sequence manageable. The result is captured as a Cost of Delay table and prioritization sequence. | 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 | Low | High | High |
Timedifferent | 45-60 min | 60-90 min | 90-180 min | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | 4-12 | 3-8 | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Annotated Diagram, Prioritized Risk List, Action Backlog | CoD Table, Prioritization Sequence | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary |
Tagsno overlap | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | RiskArchitectureWorkshopValidation | PrioritizationDeliveryEconomicsDecision | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation |