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 WSJF |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |  Growth A/B Testing |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When many tasks compete for the same capacity, it orders work by economic impact. It makes time lost, benefit, and effort comparable together. | 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. | When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Low | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 45-90 min | 1-4 Wochen | 45-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 2-8 | 1-6 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Ranked Backlog, Cost-of-Delay Assumptions | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking |
Tagsno overlap | LeanEconomicsSequencePrioritization | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation |