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 a yellow story card, blue rule cards, green example cards and a red question card on a light workspace.
Agile
Example Mapping
Paper illustration for 1-2-4-All.
Facilitation
1-2-4-All
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 story carries business rules and exceptions, it brings clarity before implementation. It makes examples, open questions, and boundaries visible enough that the logic becomes jointly sound.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 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
LowLowLowMedium
Timedifferent
5-15 min30-60 min10-20 min60-120 min
Participantsdifferent
3-203-74-100+5-12
Formatsame
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Ranked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistExample Map, Acceptance Criteria, Open QuestionsIdea List, Shared Insights, Emergent ThemesRanked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority
Tagsno overlap
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
Behavior-Driven DevelopmentRequirementsExamplesRefinement
FacilitationInclusionIdeation
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
Add more methods