View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Agile Ideal Days |  Growth A/B Testing |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |  Facilitation Dot Estimation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When effort needs to be thought of as real working time, it offers a simple common denominator for comparison. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as Ideal Day Estimates, Assumption Notes, and Capacity Caveats. | 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. | Plans often contain assumptions that were never openly stated and remain dangerous precisely because of that. Assumption Surfacing makes these silent premises visible and prioritizes which of them carry the initiative or could sink it. | When size or effort can only be estimated roughly, Dot Estimation condenses the group's experience into a quick range. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as an Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, and Discussion Targets. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | High | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 15-60 min | 1-4 Wochen | 45-90 min | 5-20 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-9 | 1-6 | 2-8 | 3-20 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Ideal Day Estimates, Assumption Notes, Capacity Caveats | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, Discussion Targets |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationEffortAgile | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | EstimationEffortRisk |