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 Dot Estimation |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 size or effort can only be estimated roughly, Dot Estimation condenses the group's experience into a quick range. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as an Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, and Discussion Targets. | 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 | High | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | laufend | 1-4 Wochen | 5-20 min | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 2-12 | 1-6 | 3-20 | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, Slicing Rules | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, Discussion Targets | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationForecastingFlow | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | EstimationEffortRisk | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |