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 Thinking |  Growth A/B Testing |  Innovation Double Diamond |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | 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 problems with a fuzzy situation, the method cleanly separates search space and decision. It first creates breadth in understanding and then focus in elaboration. This brings open questions, problem definition, and solution path into a traceable movement. | When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. |
Complexitydifferent | High | High | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1 Tag bis mehrere Wochen | 1-4 Wochen | Wochen bis Monate | 45-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-10 | 1-6 | 3-12 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Problem Statement, Prototype, Test Learnings | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Problem Statement, Solution Options, Prototypes, Deliverables per Phase | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking |
Tagsno overlap | InnovationPrototypeResearch | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | ProcessDivergenceInnovation | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation |