View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Decision Making Force Field Analysis |  Decision Making Delphi Method |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 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. | In change initiatives, supporting and restraining forces sit at the table at the same time. Force Field Analysis makes these tensions explicit and shows where change can be pushed forward by strengthening or relieving. | When knowledge is distributed and direct dominance should be avoided, groups quickly fall under the sway of their opinion leaders. The Delphi Method gathers assessments iteratively and gradually brings expert judgments closer together. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 45–90 min | 45-90 min | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 3-10 | 3-12 | 6-30 Experten |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes | Expert Forecast, Consensus Range, Assumption Notes |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | ChangeDecisionStrategy | ForecastingExpertsDecisionStrategy |