View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Facilitation Expectation Mapping |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |  Growth A/B Testing |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When roles, interfaces, or projects fail because of differing expectations, Expectation Mapping surfaces these differences. It shows what each side takes for granted and where the pictures diverge. | When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. | 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 several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 45-60 min | 1-4 Wochen | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 2-8 | 1-6 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions |
Tagsno overlap | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation |