View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Operations Fault Tree Analysis |  Growth A/B Testing |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | For a critical top event with several possible triggers, the method logically models failure paths. It makes visible which combinations of conditions can lead to damage. | 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 demand is still unclear, it measures interest in a feature before it is built. It separates real behavior from polite agreement and deliberately keeps build effort small. | 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 | 2-6 h | 1-4 Wochen | 1-5 Tage | 45-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 1-6 | Nutzertraffic | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Fault Tree, Critical Paths, Cause Hypotheses, Control Actions | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking |
Tagsno overlap | RiskRoot causeSafety | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation |