View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Facilitation Dot Voting |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |  Facilitation 1-2-4-All |  Growth A/B Testing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. | When many people in a group too rarely get to speak, 1-2-4-All distributes thinking time more fairly. The format builds participation step by step and makes quiet or still-unformed thoughts usable faster. | 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 | Low | Medium | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 5-15 min | 45-60 min | 10-20 min | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 | 2-8 | 4-100+ | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Idea List, Shared Insights, Emergent Themes | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | FacilitationInclusionIdeation | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation |