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 Consensus Workshop |  Product Discovery Smoke Test |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |  Growth A/B Testing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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 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. | 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 | Low | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 1-5 Tage | 60–90 min | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 5-30 | Nutzertraffic | 2-8 | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Interest Metrics, Conversion Signal, Learning Note | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | ValidationExperimentsDemandGrowth | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation |