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 |  Delivery MoSCoW |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |  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 release carries too many demands and priorities are only ever negotiated, MoSCoW creates clear boundaries for the next cut. Must, Should, Could, and Won't make commitment, room for maneuver, and trade-off logic visible to everyone involved. | 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 | Low | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 5-15 min | 30-90 min | 1-3 h | 60-120 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 | 3-12 | 5-30 | 5-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Prioritized Backlog, Release Scope, Tradeoff Notes | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | PrioritizationScopeDecision | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion |