View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Decision Making Radar |  Growth A/B Testing |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When capabilities, maturity levels, or market positions need to be compared across several dimensions, overview is easily lost. Radar brings different characteristics into a shared picture and shows patterns faster than tables do. | 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 | Medium | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 1-4 Wochen | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-10 | 1-6 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Radar Map, Capability Scores, Action Areas | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan |
Tagsno overlap | AssessmentPortfolioCapability | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
