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 Dot Voting |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  UX Research User Interviews |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 5-15 min | 30–60 min | 30–60 min per interview | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 | 4-8 | 1 participant per interview | 5-30 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment |