View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Product Discovery Outcome-Driven Innovation |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |  Architecture Risk Storming |  Growth A/B Testing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | Outcome-Driven Innovation clarifies customer problems, solution opportunities, and evidence. It separates jobs, desired outcomes, importance, satisfaction, and opportunity, and captures results as desired outcome statements, an opportunity landscape, and segments by underserved needs. | When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. | Helps clarify architecture context, options, and consequences in concrete terms. It organizes technical context, alternatives, and consequences. The result is captured as an Annotated Diagram, a Prioritized Risk List, and an Action Backlog. | 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 | High | Medium | Low | High |
Timedifferent | Mehrere Wochen | 45-60 min | 60-90 min | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 2-6 researchers plus sample | 2-8 | 4-12 | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Desired outcome statements, Opportunity landscape, Segmentation by underserved needs, Innovation hypotheses | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Annotated Diagram, Prioritized Risk List, Action Backlog | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary |
Tagsno overlap | OutcomesInnovationResearchQuantitative | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | RiskArchitectureWorkshopValidation | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation |