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 ICE Scoring with its method-specific working model.
Product Strategy
ICE Scoring
Paper illustration for Alignment Mapping.
Facilitation
Alignment Mapping
Paper illustration for Fake Door Test
Product Discovery
Fake Door Test
A/B Testing workspace showing the question, observations, and next decision.
Growth
A/B Testing
Purposedifferent
When ideas need sorting quickly, it condenses impact, confidence, and effort into one compact score. It connects customer value, product logic, and decision priorities. The result is captured as an ICE table and top-ideas list.When several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable.When demand is still unclear, it measures interest in a feature before it is built. It separates real behavior from polite agreement and deliberately keeps build effort small.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.
Complexitydifferent
LowMediumMediumHigh
Timedifferent
30-60 min1-2 h1-5 Tage1-4 Wochen
Participantsdifferent
2-84-12Nutzertraffic1-6
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshopAsyncAsync
Outputdifferent
ICE Table, Top Idea ListAlignment Map, Open Issues, Decision QuestionsClick Data, Interest Signal, Learning DecisionExperiment results, Decision log, Learning summary
Tagsno overlap
PrioritizationScoringGrowthDecision
AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation
ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery
ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation
Add more methods