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 |  Product Discovery Opportunity Solution Tree |  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. | When discovery keeps swinging between goals, ideas, and learning loops, it creates clear steering logic. It connects the desired outcome, opportunities, and experiments into a legible structure. | 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 | Medium | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45-75 min | 1-2 h Setup, laufend | 1-4 Wochen | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | 2-6 | 1-6 | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Test Matrix, Test Plan | Opportunity Solution Tree, Experiment Backlog, Learning Log | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tags1 shared | ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryOptions | DiscoveryOutcomesExperimentsOpportunity | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |