methodatlas
Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Criterion
Paper illustration for Alignment Mapping.
Facilitation
Alignment Mapping
Independent contributions form an ordered group priority list.
Facilitation
Nominal Group Technique
Paper illustration for Affinity Estimation.
Agile
Affinity Estimation
Paper illustration of shared options, independently placed voting dots, and a highlighted shortlist.
Facilitation
Dot Voting
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 loud voices could dominate a round, Nominal Group Technique protects individual thinking time from group effects. It collects ideas separately first and only then enables shared weighting.When many tasks need to be classified quickly, it sorts them by perceived effort and similarity. It reduces the effort of fine-grained estimation for large volumes.When a workshop has produced too many options and the group needs to condense quickly, dot voting makes preferences visible in a short time. It bundles individual votes into a solid signal for the next selection.
Complexitydifferent
MediumMediumMediumLow
Timedifferent
1-2 h60-120 min30-90 min5-15 min
Participantsdifferent
4-125-123-123-20
Formatsame
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision QuestionsRanked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group PriorityAffinity Size Map, Grouped Estimates, Unclear ItemsRanked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist
Tagsno overlap
AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
EstimationBacklogRelative sizing
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
Add more methods