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 Nominal Group Technique |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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 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 | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 30–60 min | 60-120 min | 45–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 5-30 | 4-8 | 5-12 | 3-10 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause |