View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Product Strategy ICE Scoring |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Decision Making Decision Matrix |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. | ATAM helps teams weigh architecture decisions when quality goals compete. The team considers business goals, stakeholder expectations, and technical decisions together. The evaluation shows which risks need further investigation. | When several options collide with several criteria, comparison quickly becomes subjective. A Decision Matrix makes the trade-off visible and brings weighting, criteria, and options into a shared logic. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30-60 min | 45-60 min | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | 2-8 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 2-8 |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | ICE Table, Top Idea List | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Decision Matrix, Scoring Rationale, Selected Option |
Tagsno overlap | PrioritizationScoringGrowthDecision | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | DecisionCriteriaScoringTradeoffs |