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
Affinity Diagramming
UX Research
Affinity Diagramming
Independent contributions form an ordered group priority list.
Facilitation
Nominal Group Technique
Empathy Mapping
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 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.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
LowMediumLow
Timedifferent
45–90 min60-120 min30–60 min
Participantsdifferent
3-105-124-8
Formatsame
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areasRanked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group PriorityEmpathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps
Tagsno overlap
SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop
Add more methods

Often compared together

Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.

Paper illustration of shared options, independently placed voting dots, and a highlighted shortlist.
Facilitation
Dot Voting
Paper illustration for 1-2-4-All.
Facilitation
1-2-4-All
Paper illustration of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
Paper illustration of the Lightning Decision Jam working structure.
Facilitation
Decision Jam