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 shared options, independently placed voting dots, and a highlighted shortlist.
Facilitation
Dot Voting
A/B Testing workspace showing the question, observations, and next decision.
Growth
A/B Testing
Paper illustration for Alignment Mapping.
Facilitation
Alignment Mapping
Paper illustration for Smoke Test.
Product Discovery
Smoke Test
Purposedifferent
When a workshop has produced too many options and the group needs to condense quickly, dot voting makes preferences visible in a short time. It bundles individual votes into a solid signal for the next selection.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 several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable.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.
Complexitydifferent
LowHighMediumLow
Timedifferent
5-15 min1-4 Wochen1-2 h1-5 Tage
Participantsdifferent
3-201-64-12Nutzertraffic
Formatdifferent
WorkshopAsyncWorkshopAsync
Outputdifferent
Ranked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistExperiment results, Decision log, Learning summaryAlignment Map, Open Issues, Decision QuestionsInterest Metrics, Conversion Signal, Learning Note
Tagsno overlap
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation
AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation
ValidationExperimentsDemandGrowth
Add more methods