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 |  UX Research User Interviews |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | When teams derive needs only from assumptions and real motives are missing, user interviews give direct access to behavior and meaning. Conversations from the target group's everyday life make patterns, tensions, and open questions solidly visible. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 30–60 min | 30–60 min per interview | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 4-8 | 1 participant per interview | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan |
Tagsno overlap | SensemakingDecisionRationale | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery |