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 User Story Mapping |  Growth A/B Testing |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |  Product Discovery Concierge MVP |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When user goals and delivery scope could drift apart, it orders the journey from goal to slice. It makes visible where an MVP can genuinely be cut. | 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. | When an idea can first fail or grow through genuine hands-on support, it relies on manual work instead of automation. It shows whether user value holds up even under manual execution. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 2-4 h | 1-4 Wochen | 45-60 min | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 4-10 | 1-6 | 2-8 | 3-10 Kunden |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Story Map, Release Slices, Backlog Candidates | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks |
Tagsno overlap | BacklogJourneyPlanningMVP | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery |