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 |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |  Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs) |  Growth A/B Testing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. | ARID examines how well developers can work with a technical design. It focuses on a part of the system that can still be revised, between the architecture overview and the detailed specification. | 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 | Medium | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | Wochen bis Monate | 45-60 min | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 2-8 | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Problem Statement, Solution Options, Prototypes, Deliverables per Phase | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary |
Tagsno overlap | ProcessDivergenceInnovation | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation |