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 a MoSCoW board with four columns and a visible release boundary.
Delivery
MoSCoW
Decision Tree method illustration showing its working structure
Decision Making
Decision Tree
Paper illustration of shared options, independently placed voting dots, and a highlighted shortlist.
Facilitation
Dot Voting
Paper illustration of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
Purposedifferent
When a release carries too many demands and priorities are only ever negotiated, MoSCoW creates clear boundaries for the next cut. Must, Should, Could, and Won't make commitment, room for maneuver, and trade-off logic visible to everyone involved.For decisions with follow-on paths and dependencies, a linear comparison is often not enough. A Decision Tree shows how options branch under conditions and which consequences hang on each branch.When a workshop has produced too many options and the group needs to condense quickly, dot voting makes preferences visible in a short time. It bundles individual votes into a solid signal for the next selection.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.
Complexitydifferent
LowMediumLowMedium
Timedifferent
30-90 min30-90 min5-15 min1-3 h
Participantsdifferent
3-121-63-205-30
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Prioritized Backlog, Release Scope, Tradeoff NotesDecision Tree, Option Map, Assumption ListRanked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas
Tagsno overlap
PrioritizationScopeDecision
DecisionTreeOptions
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
Add more methods