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 ICE Scoring with its method-specific working model.
Product Strategy
ICE Scoring
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 ideas need sorting quickly, it condenses impact, confidence, and effort into one compact score. It connects customer value, product logic, and decision priorities. The result is captured as an ICE table and top-ideas list.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
LowHighLowLow
Timedifferent
5-15 min1-4 Wochen30-60 min1-5 Tage
Participantsdifferent
3-201-62-8Nutzertraffic
Formatdifferent
WorkshopAsyncWorkshop + asyncAsync
Outputdifferent
Ranked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistExperiment results, Decision log, Learning summaryICE Table, Top Idea ListInterest Metrics, Conversion Signal, Learning Note
Tagsno overlap
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation
PrioritizationScoringGrowthDecision
ValidationExperimentsDemandGrowth
Add more methods