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 for Dot Estimation.
Facilitation
Dot Estimation
A/B Testing workspace showing the question, observations, and next decision.
Growth
A/B Testing
Paper illustration of Counter Metrics with its method-specific working model.
Product Strategy
Counter Metrics
Paper illustration of a calm four-quadrant Assumption Map with hypothesis cards and emphasis on important assumptions with little evidence.
Product Discovery
Assumption Mapping
Purposedifferent
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.When a headline metric could mask side effects, it adds guardrail signals against unwanted outcomes. It connects customer value, product logic, and decision priorities. The result is captured as a counter-metric list and guardrail definitions.When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first.
Complexitydifferent
LowHighLowMedium
Timedifferent
5-20 min1-4 Wochen30-60 min45-60 min
Participantsdifferent
3-201-62-62-8
Formatdifferent
WorkshopAsyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + async
Outputdifferent
Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, Discussion TargetsExperiment results, Decision log, Learning summaryCounter Metric List, Guardrail DefinitionsAssumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking
Tagsno overlap
EstimationEffortRisk
ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation
MetricsMeasurementStrategyExperiments
AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation
Add more methods