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 |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |  Product Discovery MVP Test Matrix |  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 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 several minimal variants compete to answer the same question, it makes comparing and choosing between them cleaner. It separates problem, assumption, solution, and evidence. The result is captured as a Test Matrix and a Test Plan. | When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 2-6 h | 1-5 Tage | 45-75 min | 45-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | Nutzertraffic | 2-8 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Fault Tree, Critical Paths, Cause Hypotheses, Control Actions | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision | Test Matrix, Test Plan | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking |
Tagsno overlap | RiskRoot causeSafety | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery | ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryOptions | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation |