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 |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |  Growth A/B Testing |  Facilitation Dot Estimation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | High | Low |
Timedifferent | laufend | 45-60 min | 1-4 Wochen | 5-20 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-12 | 2-8 | 1-6 | 3-20 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, Slicing Rules | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, Discussion Targets |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationForecastingFlow | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | EstimationEffortRisk |