View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Product Discovery Smoke Test |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |  Growth A/B Testing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When demand only needs to be roughly verified, it tests interest with minimal effort. It measures whether people would take a next step at all. | When statements, evidence, and counterarguments get mixed up, a debate quickly loses its structure. Argument Mapping breaks a thesis down into its reasoning and makes visible what it really rests on. | Plans often contain assumptions that were never openly stated and remain dangerous precisely because of that. Assumption Surfacing makes these silent premises visible and prioritizes which of them carry the initiative or could sink it. | 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 | Medium | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 1-5 Tage | 1-3 h | 45-90 min | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | Nutzertraffic | 1-8 | 2-8 | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Interest Metrics, Conversion Signal, Learning Note | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary |
Tagsno overlap | ValidationExperimentsDemandGrowth | SensemakingDecisionRationale | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation |