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 |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |  Product Strategy Lean Canvas |  Growth A/B Testing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. | When an early product bet still has too many open points, it brings target group, problem, and assumptions into a single view. It condenses the idea so core risks become nameable. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 30–45 min | 45-60 min | 45-90 min | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 1-10 | 2-8 | 1-6 | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | HMW Questions, Challenge Framing, Idea Prompts | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Lean Canvas, Core Assumptions, Experiment Backlog | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary |
Tagsno overlap | FramingOpportunityIdeationQuestions | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | StartupLeanAssumptionsBusiness model | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation |