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 Strategy Product Canvas |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When product goal and feature scope don't yet fit cleanly together, it creates a shared working picture. It connects need, core features, and assumptions into a solid starting point. | An RFC clarifies architecture context, options, and consequences. It structures technical context, alternatives, tradeoffs, open questions, and review feedback, and captures the result as an RFC document, reviewer comments, and a decision rationale. | When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. | 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. |
Complexitysame | Medium | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 45-60 min | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | 3-20 Reviewer | 2-8 | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Product Canvas, Product Assumptions, Scope Notes | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | CanvasDiscoveryScope | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |