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 Risk Storming |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |  Growth A/B Testing |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | Helps clarify architecture context, options, and consequences in concrete terms. It organizes technical context, alternatives, and consequences. The result is captured as an Annotated Diagram, a Prioritized Risk List, and an Action Backlog. | 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. | 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 | Low | Medium | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 60-90 min | 1-5 Tage | 1-4 Wochen | 45-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 | Nutzertraffic | 1-6 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Annotated Diagram, Prioritized Risk List, Action Backlog | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking |
Tags1 shared | RiskArchitectureWorkshopValidation | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation |