View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Agile Starfish Retrospective |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |  Growth A/B Testing |  Agile Sailboat Retrospective |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When improvement options need to be sorted more finely than just start and stop, it brings observations into clear kinds of action. This makes visible what should be done more, less, newly, or continued. | When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. | 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 a team wants to read momentum, brakes, and risks together, it offers an easily understandable picture of the situation. It makes drive, obstacles, and headwind visible in the same picture. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 45-60 min | 1-4 Wochen | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 | 2-8 | 1-6 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Starfish Board, Practice Changes, Experiments | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Sailboat Board, Risks, Improvement Actions |
Tagsno overlap | RetrospectiveImprovementExperimentsTeam | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | RetrospectiveTeamImprovement |