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 of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
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 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 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
LowMediumHigh
Timedifferent
30-60 min1-3 h1-4 Wochen
Participantsdifferent
2-85-301-6
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshopAsync
Outputdifferent
ICE Table, Top Idea ListConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority AreasExperiment results, Decision log, Learning summary
Tagsno overlap
PrioritizationScoringGrowthDecision
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation
Add more methods

Often compared together

Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.

Paper illustration of the Lightning Decision Jam working structure.
Facilitation
Decision Jam
Paper illustration of shared options, independently placed voting dots, and a highlighted shortlist.
Facilitation
Dot Voting
Paper illustration for Smoke Test.
Product Discovery
Smoke Test
Paper illustration for 3-Circle Venn Diagram
Facilitation
3-Circle Venn Diagram