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 |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|
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. | ATAM helps teams weigh architecture decisions when quality goals compete. The team considers business goals, stakeholder expectations, and technical decisions together. The evaluation shows which risks need further investigation. | When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45-75 min | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 45-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Test Matrix, Test Plan | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking |
Tagsno overlap | ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryOptions | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
