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 |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Facilitation Nominal Group Technique |  Facilitation Power Interest Grid |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable. | When loud voices could dominate a round, Nominal Group Technique protects individual thinking time from group effects. It collects ideas separately first and only then enables shared weighting. | When many stakeholders compete for attention at once, the Power Interest Grid sorts them by influence and stake. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Power Interest Grid and a stakeholder-specific strategy. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 1-2 h | 60-120 min | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 4-12 | 5-12 | 2-8 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority | Power Interest Grid, Strategy per Stakeholder |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentPlanning |