Conjoint shows how respondents weigh many features against each other and choose between profiles. Pretotyping measures for which of the final variants customers show purchase or sign-up intent. Horizon runs pretotyping as a painted-door test.

Discuss the differences To the comparison

Compared

Two methods, two strengths.

Both let people choose between options. The difference lies in what is measured: a choice in a survey or behaviour in a buying situation.

Conjoint

Pretotyping

What is measured

Choice between feature profiles in a survey

Purchase or sign-up intent as behaviour: a click on buy or sign up, email and confirmation

Who responds

Respondents from a panel

Consumers in their familiar online environment, reached through Google and Meta ads, with no panel and no incentive

Variants

Many profiles, combined systematically

Up to six concrete variants

Result

Part-worth utilities and preference shares per feature

Purchase or sign-up intent per variant, statistically validated

Speed

A few days to a few weeks

Around four weeks from question to data analysis, plus ad budget

Typical use

Weighting features and shortening the longlist

Testing the final variants before budget is committed

Context

Where the methods differ.

Breadth

Conjoint weighs many features at once. Pretotyping tests a few fully combined variants.

Signal

Conjoint measures a choice in a survey. Pretotyping measures the click on buy or sign up.

Willingness to pay

Conjoint derives it from survey answers. Pretotyping compares prices on behaviour.

Combination

Combining both methods.

Step 1

Conjoint

Weight features and shorten the longlist.

Step 2

Build variants

Select up to six of the strongest combinations.

Step 3

Pretotyping

Test the variants on purchase or sign-up behaviour.

Step 4

Decision

With feature weights and behavioural evidence.

More comparisons

Pretotyping compared with other methods.

Method

Pretotyping and surveys

Stated willingness to buy or measured purchase intent.

To the comparison

Method

Pretotyping and Van Westendorp and Gabor-Granger

Stated willingness to pay or prices compared on behaviour.

To the comparison

Method

Pretotyping and concept tests

A rating in a survey or measured purchase intent in the online environment.

To the comparison

Method

Pretotyping and A/B tests in the shop

Optimising what is live or deciding before investing.

To the comparison

Method

Pretotyping and synthetic respondents

Simulated answers or the behaviour of real people.

To the comparison

Provider

Horizon compared with providers.

Provider

Horizon and quantilope

Automated survey methods and a behavioural test.

To the comparison

Provider

Horizon and Veylinx

An auction within the study flow and a behavioural test in the buying situation.

To the comparison

Provider

Horizon and Appinio

Surveys via an app panel and a behavioural test in the online environment.

To the comparison

All comparisons

FAQ

Frequently asked questions.

Does pretotyping replace conjoint?

No. Conjoint weighs features, pretotyping tests the resulting variants on behaviour. The two can be used one after the other.

pretotyping-vs-conjoint

Why is a conjoint analysis not enough for the pricing decision?

Conjoint relies on answers in a survey. The willingness to pay measured this way can be higher than actual willingness to pay, especially for new and higher-priced products.

pretotyping-vs-conjoint

Is anything sold with pretotyping?

No. No contract is concluded and no payment is taken. Anyone who chooses an offer is then told transparently that the offer is not yet available.

pretotyping-vs-conjoint

How long does a test with Horizon take?

Around four weeks from question to data analysis, depending on the target group and the number of variants.

pretotyping-vs-conjoint