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 |  Systems Thinking Future Reality Tree |  Product Discovery Smoke Test |  Growth A/B Testing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | A Future Reality Tree shows how desired actions are meant to lead to a better system state. The method checks whether a path of change holds together logically before time flows into implementation. | When demand only needs to be roughly verified, it tests interest with minimal effort. It measures whether people would take a next step at all. | 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 | Low | High | Low | High |
Timedifferent | Stunden bis wenige Tage | 2-4 h | 1-5 Tage | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 1-4 | 3-8 | Nutzertraffic | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Pretotyping sketch, Test setup, Conversion data, Go or no-go decision | Future Reality Tree, Negative Branches, Assumption List, Improved Injections | Interest Metrics, Conversion Signal, Learning Note | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary |
Tagsno overlap | ValidationDemandMVP | Theory of ConstraintsSystems thinkingChange | ValidationExperimentsDemandGrowth | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation |