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 |  Facilitation Nominal Group Technique |  Product Discovery Smoke Test |  Growth A/B Testing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 demand only needs to be roughly verified, it tests interest with minimal effort. It measures whether people would take a next step at all. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 60-120 min | 1-5 Tage | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 | 5-12 | Nutzertraffic | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority | Interest Metrics, Conversion Signal, Learning Note | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary |
Tagsno overlap | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion | ValidationExperimentsDemandGrowth | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation |