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 of Experiment Canvas with a method-specific labelled workspace.
Product Discovery
Experiment Canvas
Paper illustration of a Test Card with four fields for hypothesis, test, metric, and success threshold.
Product Discovery
Test Card
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 experiments become unreadable after the fact, it arranges hypothesis, signal, and learning goal on a single canvas. It separates problem, assumption, solution, and evidence. The result is captured as a Completed Experiment Canvas and a Success Metric.The Test Card turns a critical assumption into a testable claim and specifies in advance which result counts as success.
Complexitydifferent
LowHighLowLow
Timedifferent
5-15 min1-4 Wochen30-60 min20-35 min
Participantsdifferent
3-201-61-51-5
Formatdifferent
WorkshopAsyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + async
Outputdifferent
Ranked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistExperiment results, Decision log, Learning summaryCompleted Experiment Canvas, Success MetricTest Card with a pre-set threshold
Tagsno overlap
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation
ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryHypothesis
ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryHypothesis
Add more methods