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
Funnel Analysis workspace showing the question, observations, and next decision.
Growth
Funnel Analysis
Paper illustration of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
A/B Testing workspace showing the question, observations, and next decision.
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 many visitors or users drop off along the way, the reason behind the number often stays hidden. Funnel Analysis exposes these transitions and makes visible exactly where the path collapses.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 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
LowMediumMediumHigh
Timedifferent
5-15 min1-3 h1-3 h1-4 Wochen
Participantsdifferent
3-201-55-301-6
Formatdifferent
WorkshopAsyncWorkshopAsync
Outputdifferent
Ranked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistFunnel report, Drop-off analysis, Optimization hypothesesConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority AreasExperiment results, Decision log, Learning summary
Tagsno overlap
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
AnalyticsConversionGrowth
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation
Add more methods