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 |  Decision Making PERT Estimation |  Growth A/B Testing |  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. | On complex initiatives, a plain average tends to understate just how uncertain the outcome really is. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a PERT Estimate, Expected Value, and Risk Notes. | 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 | Low | Medium | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 5-15 min | 15-45 min | 1-4 Wochen | 45-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 | 1-8 | 1-6 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | PERT Estimate, Expected Value, Risk Notes | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | EstimationUncertaintyRisk | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation |