View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Systems Thinking Intervention Mapping |  Facilitation Dot Estimation |  Growth A/B Testing |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | Intervention Mapping translates a need for change into a planned, evaluable program. The method connects target group, determinants, actions, and measurement into a traceable chain. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Low | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-5 Tage | 5-20 min | 1-4 Wochen | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 | 3-20 | 1-6 | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Logic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation Plan | Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, Discussion Targets | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | ChangeSystems thinkingCapability | EstimationEffortRisk | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |