View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Growth A/B Testing |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable. | 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 group needs a solid decision without outvoting individual factions, a Consensus Workshop creates a negotiable common ground. It makes agreement, reservations, and open tensions discussable at the same time. | When an initiative depends on many people, interests, and power dynamics, Stakeholder Mapping systematically orders the environment. It shows who influences, who is affected, and where relationship management or safeguarding matters first. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 1-4 Wochen | 1-3 h | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 | 1-6 | 5-30 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |