View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Facilitation Dot Voting |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 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 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 several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 30–60 min | 5-15 min | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 5-30 | 4-8 | 3-20 | 4-12 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation |