View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Decision Making Decision Matrix |  Facilitation Dot Estimation |  Growth A/B Testing |  Decision Making Trade-off Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When several options collide with several criteria, comparison quickly becomes subjective. A Decision Matrix makes the trade-off visible and brings weighting, criteria, and options into a shared logic. | When size or effort can only be estimated roughly, Dot Estimation condenses the group's experience into a quick range. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as an Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, and Discussion Targets. | 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. | With limited resources, quality, speed, cost, and risk almost always compete with each other. Trade-off Analysis makes these tensions explicit and prevents decisions from producing hidden side effects. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 5-20 min | 1-4 Wochen | 45-120 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | 3-20 | 1-6 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Decision Matrix, Scoring Rationale, Selected Option | Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, Discussion Targets | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Trade-off Matrix, Criteria List, Decision Rationale, Accepted Downsides |
Tagsno overlap | DecisionCriteriaScoringTradeoffs | EstimationEffortRisk | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | TradeoffsDecisionCriteriaOptions |