View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Systems Thinking Evaporating Cloud |  Agile Ideal Days |  Growth A/B Testing |  Facilitation Dot Estimation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | The method makes visible why two seemingly incompatible demands arise and which assumption must be tested to resolve the conflict. | When effort needs to be thought of as real working time, it offers a simple common denominator for comparison. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as Ideal Day Estimates, Assumption Notes, and Capacity Caveats. | 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 size or effort can only be estimated roughly, Dot Estimation condenses the group's experience into a quick range. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as an Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, and Discussion Targets. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 60-120 min | 15-60 min | 1-4 Wochen | 5-20 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | 2-9 | 1-6 | 3-20 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Conflict Cloud, Assumption List, Breakthrough Ideas, Next Experiments | Ideal Day Estimates, Assumption Notes, Capacity Caveats | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, Discussion Targets |
Tagsno overlap | Theory of ConstraintsAssumptionsSystems thinking | EstimationEffortAgile | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | EstimationEffortRisk |