View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When statements, evidence, and counterarguments get mixed up, a debate quickly loses its structure. Argument Mapping breaks a thesis down into its reasoning and makes visible what it really rests on. | 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. | Plans often contain assumptions that were never openly stated and remain dangerous precisely because of that. Assumption Surfacing makes these silent premises visible and prioritizes which of them carry the initiative or could sink it. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 30–60 min | 45-90 min | 45–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 4-8 | 2-8 | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas |
Tagsno overlap | SensemakingDecisionRationale | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause |