View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |  Innovation Brainstorming |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When research notes, feedback, or observations sit unconnected side by side, affinity diagramming sorts the raw material into solid themes. Many individual points turn into patterns that make decisions and opportunities clearer. | 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 team faces an open question with many obvious directions, the method first creates breadth instead of premature commitment. It separates idea flow from evaluation and makes lines of thought visible, creating a pool for selection and further development. | When a lot is assumed about a target group but little is seen jointly, empathy mapping makes knowledge and gaps directly comparable. The picture also shows which assumptions hold up and where evidence is missing. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 45–90 min | 1-3 h | 30-60 min | 30–60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 5-30 | 4-12 | 4-8 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Idea pool, Theme clusters, Shortlist | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | BrainstormingIdeationCreativityWorkshopDivergence | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop |