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 |  Agile Specification by Example |  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 business rules need to become precise, it ties language, example, and test together. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as an Example Table and Acceptance Tests. | 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 | 60-90 min pro Feature | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | 3-6 | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary |
Tagsno overlap | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
