View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Growth A/B Testing |  Growth Pirate Metrics AARRR |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 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. | For products with complex usage paths, overall growth alone is too coarse to reveal bottlenecks. Pirate Metrics breaks the relationship with the product into consecutive stages and shows where the funnel actually leaks. | When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 1-4 Wochen | 1-2 h Setup, laufend | 45-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 Reviewer | 1-6 | 2-8 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | AARRR funnel, Metric baseline, Experiment backlog | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | GrowthMetricsExperiments | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation |