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 a decision table with criteria rows, weighted ratings, and a narrowly leading alternative.
Decision Making
Decision Matrix
Funnel Analysis workspace showing the question, observations, and next decision.
Growth
Funnel Analysis
Paper illustration of the Lightning Decision Jam working structure.
Facilitation
Decision Jam
A/B Testing workspace showing the question, observations, and next decision.
Growth
A/B Testing
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 many visitors or users drop off along the way, the reason behind the number often stays hidden. Funnel Analysis exposes these transitions and makes visible exactly where the path collapses.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 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
MediumMediumLowHigh
Timedifferent
45-90 min1-3 h60-90 min1-4 Wochen
Participantsdifferent
2-81-54-101-6
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncAsyncWorkshopAsync
Outputdifferent
Decision Matrix, Scoring Rationale, Selected OptionFunnel report, Drop-off analysis, Optimization hypothesesProblem Cluster, Prioritized Challenge, ExperimentExperiment results, Decision log, Learning summary
Tagsno overlap
DecisionCriteriaScoringTradeoffs
AnalyticsConversionGrowth
FacilitationDecisionProblem solvingWorkshop
ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation
Add more methods