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 User Interviews |  Product Discovery Opportunity Interview |  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 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 opportunities are still hidden behind signals of need, it structures conversations around needs and obstacles. It looks for patterns that lead to new product opportunities. | 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 | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 5-15 min | 30–60 min per interview | 30-60 min je Interview | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 | 1 participant per interview | 5-12 Interviews | 5-30 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Interview Notes, Opportunity Themes, Customer Quotes | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | DiscoveryInterviewsOpportunityCustomer | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment |