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 Shape Up with its method-specific working model.
Delivery
Shape Up
A hypothetical failure makes concrete risks, signals, and fitting mitigations visible.
Decision Making
Pre-Mortem
A/B Testing workspace showing the question, observations, and next decision.
Growth
A/B Testing
Paper illustration for Smoke Test.
Product Discovery
Smoke Test
Purposedifferent
Shape Up helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow. It makes work boundaries and decisions explicit and captures results as pitches, bet-table decisions, and hill charts.In early initiatives with many uncertainties, planning quickly turns too optimistic. A pre-mortem makes the expected failure visible in advance and sharpens the view of causes, gaps, and countermeasures.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.When demand only needs to be roughly verified, it tests interest with minimal effort. It measures whether people would take a next step at all.
Complexitydifferent
MediumLowHighLow
Timedifferent
6 Wochen Cycle + 2 Wochen Cool-Down20–45 min1-4 Wochen1-5 Tage
Participantsdifferent
2-4 pro PitchSmall cross-functional group1-6Nutzertraffic
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshopAsyncAsync
Outputdifferent
Pitches, Bet-table decisions, Hill charts, Cooldown outcomesRisk list, Mitigation plan, Assumption logExperiment results, Decision log, Learning summaryInterest Metrics, Conversion Signal, Learning Note
Tagsno overlap
PlanningDeliveryAutonomy
RiskDecisionFailurePlanning
ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation
ValidationExperimentsDemandGrowth
Add more methods