View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Domain Modeling Context Map |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When several contexts need to talk to each other, it makes their relationships and dependencies legible. It helps sort integration pressure and responsibilities across system boundaries. | 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 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 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 | Medium | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 1-3 h | 45–90 min | 30–60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | 5-30 | 3-10 | 4-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Context Map, Integration Patterns, Boundary Notes | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps |
Tagsno overlap | Domain-Driven DesignBoundariesStrategy | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop |