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
Surveys method illustration showing its working structure
UX Research
Surveys
Paper illustration of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
Paper illustration of shared options, independently placed voting dots, and a highlighted shortlist.
Facilitation
Dot Voting
Independent contributions form an ordered group priority list.
Facilitation
Nominal Group Technique
Purposedifferent
When a topic needs to be validated broadly and many people can answer the same question, surveys gather structured feedback in a scalable form. Answers become comparable and segmentable instead of remaining merely anecdotal.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 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 loud voices could dominate a round, Nominal Group Technique protects individual thinking time from group effects. It collects ideas separately first and only then enables shared weighting.
Complexitydifferent
MediumMediumLowMedium
Timedifferent
3-14 Tage1-3 h5-15 min60-120 min
Participantsdifferent
50+5-303-205-12
Formatdifferent
AsyncWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Survey Results, Charts, Segment InsightsConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority AreasRanked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistRanked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority
Tagsno overlap
QuantitativeResearchValidation
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
Add more methods