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 |  Product Discovery MVP Test Matrix |  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 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. | 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 | 45-75 min | 45-90 min | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | Nutzertraffic | 2-8 | 2-8 | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Interest Metrics, Conversion Signal, Learning Note | Test Matrix, Test Plan | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary |
Tagsno overlap | ValidationExperimentsDemandGrowth | ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryOptions | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation |