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 SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method) |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |  Growth A/B Testing |  Product Discovery Learning Card |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | SAAM helps teams judge an architecture’s suitability for selected tasks and changes. It is particularly useful for examining modifiability and comparing architecture alternatives with clear reasoning. | 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. | The Learning Card connects traceable test results to a reasoned next action while keeping the limits of the insight visible. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Medium | High | Low |
Timedifferent | Preparation, scenario analysis, and findings review; effort depends on scope | 1-5 Tage | 1-4 Wochen | 25-40 min |
Participantsdifferent | Architecture experts and stakeholders for scenarios and weighting | Nutzertraffic | 1-6 | 1-5 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Domain functions mapped to components and connections, Quality attributes and evaluation criteria, Typical tasks and their effects on the architecture, Reasoned evaluation or comparison of alternatives | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Learning Card with evidence and next action |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureChangeAnalysisComparisonQuality | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryLearning |