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 of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
Paper illustration of shared options, independently placed voting dots, and a highlighted shortlist.
Facilitation
Dot Voting
A/B Testing workspace showing the question, observations, and next decision.
Growth
A/B Testing
Paper illustration for Smoke Test.
Product Discovery
Smoke Test
Purposedifferent
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 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.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 demand only needs to be roughly verified, it tests interest with minimal effort. It measures whether people would take a next step at all.
Complexitydifferent
MediumLowHighLow
Timedifferent
1-3 h5-15 min1-4 Wochen1-5 Tage
Participantsdifferent
5-303-201-6Nutzertraffic
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshopAsyncAsync
Outputdifferent
Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority AreasRanked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistExperiment results, Decision log, Learning summaryInterest Metrics, Conversion Signal, Learning Note
Tagsno overlap
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation
ValidationExperimentsDemandGrowth
Add more methods