View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Decision Making Decision Matrix |  Product Discovery Smoke Test |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |  Growth A/B Testing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When several options collide with several criteria, comparison quickly becomes subjective. A Decision Matrix makes the trade-off visible and brings weighting, criteria, and options into a shared logic. | 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. | 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. | 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 | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 1-5 Tage | 45-90 min | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | Nutzertraffic | 2-8 | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Decision Matrix, Scoring Rationale, Selected Option | Interest Metrics, Conversion Signal, Learning Note | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary |
Tagsno overlap | DecisionCriteriaScoringTradeoffs | ValidationExperimentsDemandGrowth | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation |