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 |  UX Research Tree Testing |  Growth A/B Testing |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. | When a navigation exists but search paths still fail, tree testing checks findability without visual distraction. The method shows whether labels, levels, and paths really lead to the intended destination. | 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. | Plans often contain assumptions that were never openly stated and remain dangerous precisely because of that. Assumption Surfacing makes these silent premises visible and prioritizes which of them carry the initiative or could sink it. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-60 min | 1-2 Tage | 1-4 Wochen | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | Based on research question | 1-6 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Findability Metrics, Path Analysis, Revised IA | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan |
Tagsno overlap | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | Information architectureNavigationFindability | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery |