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) |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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 | Low | High | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | Stunden bis wenige Tage | 1-4 Wochen | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 1-4 | 1-6 | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async | 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 | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tags1 shared | ValidationDemandMVP | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |