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 |  Delivery Shape Up |  Growth A/B Testing |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | Shape Up helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow. It makes work boundaries and decisions explicit and captures results as pitches, bet-table decisions, and hill charts. | 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. | When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 6 Wochen Cycle + 2 Wochen Cool-Down | 1-4 Wochen | 45-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-10 | 2-4 pro Pitch | 1-6 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Radar Map, Capability Scores, Action Areas | Pitches, Bet-table decisions, Hill charts, Cooldown outcomes | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking |
Tagsno overlap | AssessmentPortfolioCapability | PlanningDeliveryAutonomy | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation |