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 an IBIS map with issues, positions and arguments
Knowledge Modeling
IBIS
Paper illustration of Request for Comments (RFC) with its method-specific working model.
Architecture
Request for Comments
A/B Testing workspace showing the question, observations, and next decision.
Growth
A/B Testing
Paper illustration for Smoke Test.
Product Discovery
Smoke Test
Purposedifferent
IBIS structures thinking about complex questions as a sequence of issues, ideas, and arguments. The method keeps discussions open without forcing them into premature consensus.An RFC clarifies architecture context, options, and consequences. It structures technical context, alternatives, tradeoffs, open questions, and review feedback, and captures the result as an RFC document, reviewer comments, and a decision rationale.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 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
MediumMediumHighLow
Timedifferent
1-3 h1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung1-4 Wochen1-5 Tage
Participantsdifferent
2-83-20 Reviewer1-6Nutzertraffic
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncAsyncAsyncAsync
Outputdifferent
Issue Map, Positions, Argument NotesRFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or ticketsExperiment results, Decision log, Learning summaryInterest Metrics, Conversion Signal, Learning Note
Tagsno overlap
RationaleKnowledgeDecision
ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance
ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation
ValidationExperimentsDemandGrowth
Add more methods