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 How Might We |  Growth A/B Testing |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |  Product Discovery MVP Test Matrix |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | With a stuck problem carrying many implicit assumptions, the method translates observations into open, workable questions. It sharpens the problem frame without pre-thinking the solution, turning frustration or fuzziness into a search space with clear direction. | 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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | High | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–45 min | 1-4 Wochen | 1-5 Tage | 45-75 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-10 | 1-6 | Nutzertraffic | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | HMW Questions, Challenge Framing, Idea Prompts | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision | Test Matrix, Test Plan |
Tagsno overlap | FramingOpportunityIdeationQuestions | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery | ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryOptions |