methodatlas
Compare

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 Tree method illustration showing its working structure
Decision Making
Decision Tree
Paper illustration of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
Affinity Diagramming
UX Research
Affinity Diagramming
Empathy Mapping
UX Research
Empathy Mapping
Purposedifferent
For decisions with follow-on paths and dependencies, a linear comparison is often not enough. A Decision Tree shows how options branch under conditions and which consequences hang on each branch.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
MediumMediumLowLow
Timedifferent
30-90 min1-3 h45–90 min30–60 min
Participantsdifferent
1-65-303-104-8
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Decision Tree, Option Map, Assumption ListConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority AreasTheme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areasEmpathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps
Tagsno overlap
DecisionTreeOptions
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause
SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop
Add more methods