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 Smoke Test |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |  Growth A/B Testing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 demand only needs to be roughly verified, it tests interest with minimal effort. It measures whether people would take a next step at all. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | laufend | 1-5 Tage | 1-5 Tage | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 2-12 | Nutzertraffic | Nutzertraffic | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, Slicing Rules | Interest Metrics, Conversion Signal, Learning Note | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationForecastingFlow | ValidationExperimentsDemandGrowth | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation |