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 Opportunity Solution Tree |  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 discovery keeps swinging between goals, ideas, and learning loops, it creates clear steering logic. It connects the desired outcome, opportunities, and experiments into a legible structure. | 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 | 1-2 h Setup, laufend | 45-75 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-10 | 1-6 | 2-6 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | HMW Questions, Challenge Framing, Idea Prompts | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Opportunity Solution Tree, Experiment Backlog, Learning Log | Test Matrix, Test Plan |
Tagsno overlap | FramingOpportunityIdeationQuestions | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | DiscoveryOutcomesExperimentsOpportunity | ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryOptions |