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 for Solution Interview
Product Discovery
Solution Interview
Surveys method illustration showing its working structure
UX Research
Surveys
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 solution idea is already on the table, it checks how it is understood and evaluated. It looks for resonance, objections, and missing fit early in the conversation.When a topic needs to be validated broadly and many people can answer the same question, surveys gather structured feedback in a scalable form. Answers become comparable and segmentable instead of remaining merely anecdotal.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
LowMediumMediumMedium
Timedifferent
5-15 min30-60 min je Interview3-14 Tage60-120 min
Participantsdifferent
3-205-10 Interviews50+5-12
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshop + asyncAsyncWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Ranked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistSolution Feedback, Objection List, Validation NotesSurvey Results, Charts, Segment InsightsRanked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority
Tagsno overlap
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
ValidationInterviewsPrototype
QuantitativeResearchValidation
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
Add more methods