View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Innovation Design Sprint |  Product Discovery Pretotyping |  Growth A/B Testing |  Innovation Design Thinking |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When the product question is unclear and time pressure is high, the method takes a team from an open idea to a testable solution. It connects problem understanding, decision, and learning in one compact format, lowering the risk of spending a lot of energy on a mere guess. | Pretotyping clarifies whether a customer problem and solution idea create enough real demand. It separates problem, assumption, solution, and evidence, and captures the result as a pretotyping sketch, test setup, and conversion data. | 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. | For complex user problems with an uncertain cause, the method connects observation, interpretation, and experiment into a learning cycle. It keeps the focus on real needs and avoids premature solution language. This produces robust decisions for product and service. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Low | High | High |
Timedifferent | 4-5 Tage | Stunden bis wenige Tage | 1-4 Wochen | 1 Tag bis mehrere Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 5-8 | 1-4 | 1-6 | 4-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Prototype, Test Findings, Decision Rationale | Pretotyping sketch, Test setup, Conversion data, Go or no-go decision | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Problem Statement, Prototype, Test Learnings |
Tagsno overlap | Design sprintPrototypeValidationInnovation | ValidationDemandMVP | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | InnovationPrototypeResearch |