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 Hooked Model with its method-specific working model.
Growth
Hooked Model
A/B Testing workspace showing the question, observations, and next decision.
Growth
A/B Testing
Paper illustration of a calm four-quadrant Assumption Map with hypothesis cards and emphasis on important assumptions with little evidence.
Product Discovery
Assumption Mapping
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.The Hooked Model helps clarify engagement loops, user behavior, and experiments. It makes repeat behavior measurable and captures the result as a hooked loop, trigger map, and reward design.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 assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first.
Complexitydifferent
LowMediumHighMedium
Timedifferent
5-15 minMultiple workshops over several weeks1-4 Wochen45-60 min
Participantsdifferent
3-202-81-62-8
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshop + asyncAsyncWorkshop + async
Outputdifferent
Ranked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistHooked loop, Trigger map, Reward design, Ethics checkExperiment results, Decision log, Learning summaryAssumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking
Tagsno overlap
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
GrowthBehaviorRetention
ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation
AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation
Add more methods