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 Double Diamond |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |  Growth A/B Testing |  Innovation Design Sprint |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 statements, evidence, and counterarguments get mixed up, a debate quickly loses its structure. Argument Mapping breaks a thesis down into its reasoning and makes visible what it really rests on. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | High | High |
Timedifferent | Wochen bis Monate | 1-3 h | 1-4 Wochen | 4-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 1-8 | 1-6 | 5-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Problem Statement, Solution Options, Prototypes, Deliverables per Phase | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Prototype, Test Findings, Decision Rationale |
Tagsno overlap | ProcessDivergenceInnovation | SensemakingDecisionRationale | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | Design sprintPrototypeValidationInnovation |