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 |  Product Discovery Pretotyping |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |  Growth A/B Testing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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 assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. | 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 | Medium | Low | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | Stunden bis wenige Tage | 45-60 min | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 2-10 | 1-4 | 2-8 | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Radar Map, Capability Scores, Action Areas | Pretotyping sketch, Test setup, Conversion data, Go or no-go decision | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary |
Tagsno overlap | AssessmentPortfolioCapability | ValidationDemandMVP | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation |