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 Pretotyping |  Growth A/B Testing |  Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs) |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | Pretotyping clarifies whether a customer problem and solution idea create enough real demand. It separates problem, assumption, solution, and evidence, and captures the result as a pretotyping sketch, test setup, and conversion data. | 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. | ARID examines how well developers can work with a technical design. It focuses on a part of the system that can still be revised, between the architecture overview and the detailed specification. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | Stunden bis wenige Tage | 1-4 Wochen | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional |
Participantsdifferent | 1-4 | 1-6 | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Pretotyping sketch, Test setup, Conversion data, Go or no-go decision | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions |
Tags1 shared | ValidationDemandMVP | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
