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 Risk Storming |  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. | Helps clarify architecture context, options, and consequences in concrete terms. It organizes technical context, alternatives, and consequences. The result is captured as an Annotated Diagram, a Prioritized Risk List, and an Action Backlog. | 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 | Low | High |
Timedifferent | Wochen bis Monate | 45-60 min | 60-90 min | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 2-8 | 4-12 | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Problem Statement, Solution Options, Prototypes, Deliverables per Phase | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Annotated Diagram, Prioritized Risk List, Action Backlog | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary |
Tagsno overlap | ProcessDivergenceInnovation | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | RiskArchitectureWorkshopValidation | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation |