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 |  Decision Making Pre-Mortem |  Growth A/B Testing |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | In early initiatives with many uncertainties, planning quickly turns too optimistic. A pre-mortem makes the expected failure visible in advance and sharpens the view of causes, gaps, and countermeasures. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 15-60 min | 20–45 min | 1-4 Wochen | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-9 | Small cross-functional group | 1-6 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Ideal Day Estimates, Assumption Notes, Capacity Caveats | Risk list, Mitigation plan, Assumption log | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationEffortAgile | RiskDecisionFailurePlanning | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery |