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 Lightning Decision Jam working structure.
Facilitation
Decision Jam
Paper illustration of a calibrated five-by-five risk matrix with response cards.
Decision Making
Risk Matrix
A/B Testing workspace showing the question, observations, and next decision.
Growth
A/B Testing
Paper illustration of ICE Scoring with its method-specific working model.
Product Strategy
ICE Scoring
Purposedifferent
When a decision is stuck, Decision Jam loosens the knot through structured separation of problem, idea, and selection. The format creates movement without jumping prematurely at the first seemingly elegant answer.When a project faces many possible disruptions, it quickly becomes unclear which risks deserve attention first. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a Risk Matrix and a Top Risk List.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 ideas need sorting quickly, it condenses impact, confidence, and effort into one compact score. It connects customer value, product logic, and decision priorities. The result is captured as an ICE table and top-ideas list.
Complexitydifferent
LowLowHighLow
Timedifferent
60-90 min30-60 min1-4 Wochen30-60 min
Participantsdifferent
4-103-101-62-8
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshop + asyncAsyncWorkshop + async
Outputdifferent
Problem Cluster, Prioritized Challenge, ExperimentRisk Matrix, Top Risk ListExperiment results, Decision log, Learning summaryICE Table, Top Idea List
Tagsno overlap
FacilitationDecisionProblem solvingWorkshop
RiskDecisionPrioritizationAssessment
ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation
PrioritizationScoringGrowthDecision
Add more methods