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 |  Product Discovery MVP Test Matrix |  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 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 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 | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | laufend | 1-4 Wochen | 45-75 min | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 2-12 | 1-6 | 2-8 | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, Slicing Rules | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Test Matrix, Test Plan | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationForecastingFlow | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryOptions | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |