View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Agile NoEstimates |  Growth A/B Testing |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When estimating slows a team down more than it helps, it shifts the focus to flow, small slices, and real lead time. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, and Slicing Rules. | 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 a group needs a solid decision without outvoting individual factions, a Consensus Workshop creates a negotiable common ground. It makes agreement, reservations, and open tensions discussable at the same time. | 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 | Medium |
Timedifferent | laufend | 1-4 Wochen | 1-3 h | 45-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-12 | 1-6 | 5-30 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, Slicing Rules | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationForecastingFlow | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation |