View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Growth North Star Metric |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |  Growth A/B Testing |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When product teams track many metrics, the view of the actual customer outcome easily gets lost. A North Star Metric bundles growth, usage, and value contribution into one signal that makes the system's direction visible. | Plans often contain assumptions that were never openly stated and remain dangerous precisely because of that. Assumption Surfacing makes these silent premises visible and prioritizes which of them carry the initiative or could sink it. | 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 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 | Low | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 45-90 min | 1-4 Wochen | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 2-8 | 1-6 | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Async |
Outputdifferent | North Star metric, Input metric tree, Measurement cadence | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | GrowthMetricsAlignmentRetention | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |