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 |  Product Discovery MVP Test Matrix |  Product Discovery Experiment Canvas |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 several minimal variants compete to answer the same question, it makes comparing and choosing between them cleaner. It separates problem, assumption, solution, and evidence. The result is captured as a Test Matrix and a Test Plan. | When experiments become unreadable after the fact, it arranges hypothesis, signal, and learning goal on a single canvas. It separates problem, assumption, solution, and evidence. The result is captured as a Completed Experiment Canvas and a Success Metric. | When demand is still unclear, it measures interest in a feature before it is built. It separates real behavior from polite agreement and deliberately keeps build effort small. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 45-75 min | 30-60 min | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 Reviewer | 2-8 | 1-5 | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Test Matrix, Test Plan | Completed Experiment Canvas, Success Metric | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryOptions | ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryHypothesis | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |