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 calibrated five-by-five risk matrix with response cards.
Decision Making
Risk Matrix
Paper illustration of a calm four-quadrant Assumption Map with hypothesis cards and emphasis on important assumptions with little evidence.
Product Discovery
Assumption Mapping
Paper illustration of shared options, independently placed voting dots, and a highlighted shortlist.
Facilitation
Dot Voting
A/B Testing workspace showing the question, observations, and next decision.
Growth
A/B Testing
Purposedifferent
When a project faces many possible disruptions, it quickly becomes unclear which risks deserve attention first. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a Risk Matrix and a Top Risk List.When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first.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 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
LowMediumLowHigh
Timedifferent
30-60 min45-60 min5-15 min1-4 Wochen
Participantsdifferent
3-102-83-201-6
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshopAsync
Outputdifferent
Risk Matrix, Top Risk ListAssumption map, Test backlog, Risk rankingRanked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistExperiment results, Decision log, Learning summary
Tagsno overlap
RiskDecisionPrioritizationAssessment
AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation
Add more methods