View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Delivery RAID Log |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |  Growth A/B Testing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | Helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow in concrete terms. It makes work, boundaries, and order steerable. The result is captured as a RAID Log and a source for status reporting. | When research notes, feedback, or observations sit unconnected side by side, affinity diagramming sorts the raw material into solid themes. Many individual points turn into patterns that make decisions and opportunities clearer. | 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 | Low | Low | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 30 min Setup, dann laufend | 45–90 min | 45-60 min | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 1-3 maintaining, briefing for everyone | 3-10 | 2-8 | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | RAID Log, Status Report Source | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary |
Tagsno overlap | RiskTrackingStakeholdersGovernance | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation |