View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Domain Modeling Context Map |  Product Discovery Smoke Test |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |  Growth A/B Testing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When several contexts need to talk to each other, it makes their relationships and dependencies legible. It helps sort integration pressure and responsibilities across system boundaries. | When demand only needs to be roughly verified, it tests interest with minimal effort. It measures whether people would take a next step at all. | When demand is still unclear, it measures interest in a feature before it is built. It separates real behavior from polite agreement and deliberately keeps build effort small. | 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 | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 1-5 Tage | 1-5 Tage | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | Nutzertraffic | Nutzertraffic | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Context Map, Integration Patterns, Boundary Notes | Interest Metrics, Conversion Signal, Learning Note | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary |
Tagsno overlap | Domain-Driven DesignBoundariesStrategy | ValidationExperimentsDemandGrowth | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation |