View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Assumption MappingSAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method)A/B TestingLASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)
| Criterion |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |  Architecture SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method) |  Growth A/B Testing |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. | SAAM helps teams judge an architecture’s suitability for selected tasks and changes. It is particularly useful for examining modifiability and comparing architecture alternatives with clear reasoning. | 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. | LASR helps development teams identify where their software falls short of important quality goals and which improvements to consider. A small group with existing system knowledge can make an initial assessment and investigate open questions in more detail. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45-60 min | Preparation, scenario analysis, and findings review; effort depends on scope | 1-4 Wochen | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | Architecture experts and stakeholders for scenarios and weighting | 1-6 | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Domain functions mapped to components and connections, Quality attributes and evaluation criteria, Typical tasks and their effects on the architecture, Reasoned evaluation or comparison of alternatives | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Lean Mission Statement describing the software’s purpose, Prioritized quality goals and evaluation criteria, Risks and estimated gaps against quality goals, More closely examined findings and open checks |
Tagsno overlap | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | ArchitectureChangeAnalysisComparisonQuality | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean |