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 Discovery Opportunity Scoring |  Facilitation Fishbowl Discussion |  Facilitation Dot Voting |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When opportunities need ranking by their effect, it makes importance and satisfaction directly comparable. It separates problem, assumption, solution, and evidence. The result is captured as an opportunity-score table and top outcomes. | When a controversial topic needs depth and discipline at the same time, Fishbowl Discussion makes the structure of the conversation transparent. The format keeps the core small enough for real dialogue and open enough for controlled turnover. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 60-120 min | 45-90 min | 5-15 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-6 | 8-80 | 3-20 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Opportunity Score Table, Top Outcomes | Discussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up Questions | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist |
Tagsno overlap | PrioritizationDiscoveryOutcomesNeeds | FacilitationDialogueLarge group | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
