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 Double Diamond with its method-specific working model.
Innovation
Double Diamond
A/B Testing workspace showing the question, observations, and next decision.
Growth
A/B Testing
Paper illustration of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
Paper illustration for Smoke Test.
Product Discovery
Smoke Test
Purposedifferent
For complex problems with a fuzzy situation, the method cleanly separates search space and decision. It first creates breadth in understanding and then focus in elaboration. This brings open questions, problem definition, and solution path into a traceable movement.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 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 demand only needs to be roughly verified, it tests interest with minimal effort. It measures whether people would take a next step at all.
Complexitydifferent
MediumHighMediumLow
Timedifferent
Wochen bis Monate1-4 Wochen1-3 h1-5 Tage
Participantsdifferent
3-121-65-30Nutzertraffic
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncAsyncWorkshopAsync
Outputdifferent
Problem Statement, Solution Options, Prototypes, Deliverables per PhaseExperiment results, Decision log, Learning summaryConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority AreasInterest Metrics, Conversion Signal, Learning Note
Tagsno overlap
ProcessDivergenceInnovation
ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
ValidationExperimentsDemandGrowth
Add more methods