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 Planning Poker |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |  Growth A/B Testing |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When estimates within the team diverge too much, it puts differing expectations on a common test bench. It separates rough complexity from unspoken assumptions. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 2-5 min je Item | 45-60 min | 1-4 Wochen | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-9 | 2-8 | 1-6 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery |