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
Paper illustration of Counter Metrics with its method-specific working model.
Product Strategy
Counter Metrics
Paper illustration of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
Independent contributions form an ordered group priority list.
Facilitation
Nominal Group Technique
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 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 a group needs a solid decision without outvoting individual factions, a Consensus Workshop creates a negotiable common ground. It makes agreement, reservations, and open tensions discussable at the same time.When loud voices could dominate a round, Nominal Group Technique protects individual thinking time from group effects. It collects ideas separately first and only then enables shared weighting.
Complexitydifferent
LowLowMediumMedium
Timedifferent
5-15 min30-60 min1-3 h60-120 min
Participantsdifferent
3-202-65-305-12
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Ranked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistCounter Metric List, Guardrail DefinitionsConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority AreasRanked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority
Tagsno overlap
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
MetricsMeasurementStrategyExperiments
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
Add more methods