View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Product Discovery MVP Test Matrix |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |  Growth A/B Testing |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When several minimal variants compete to answer the same question, it makes comparing and choosing between them cleaner. It separates problem, assumption, solution, and evidence. The result is captured as a Test Matrix and a Test Plan. | 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 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 | Medium | Low | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45-75 min | 45-90 min | 1-4 Wochen | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | 2-8 | 1-6 | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Test Matrix, Test Plan | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryOptions | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |