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 |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Knowledge Modeling IBIS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 statements, evidence, and counterarguments get mixed up, a debate quickly loses its structure. Argument Mapping breaks a thesis down into its reasoning and makes visible what it really rests on. | 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. | IBIS structures thinking about complex questions as a sequence of issues, ideas, and arguments. The method keeps discussions open without forcing them into premature consensus. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 1-3 h | 45–90 min | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 1-8 | 3-10 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Issue Map, Positions, Argument Notes |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | SensemakingDecisionRationale | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | RationaleKnowledgeDecision |