View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Delivery MoSCoW |  Product Discovery Pretotyping |  Growth A/B Testing |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a release carries too many demands and priorities are only ever negotiated, MoSCoW creates clear boundaries for the next cut. Must, Should, Could, and Won't make commitment, room for maneuver, and trade-off logic visible to everyone involved. | Pretotyping clarifies whether a customer problem and solution idea create enough real demand. It separates problem, assumption, solution, and evidence, and captures the result as a pretotyping sketch, test setup, and conversion data. | 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 | Low | Low | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30-90 min | Stunden bis wenige Tage | 1-4 Wochen | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 1-4 | 1-6 | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Prioritized Backlog, Release Scope, Tradeoff Notes | Pretotyping sketch, Test setup, Conversion data, Go or no-go decision | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | PrioritizationScopeDecision | ValidationDemandMVP | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |