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 |  Facilitation Power Interest Grid |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | When an initiative depends on many people, interests, and power dynamics, Stakeholder Mapping systematically orders the environment. It shows who influences, who is affected, and where relationship management or safeguarding matters first. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 1-3 h | 30-60 min | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 1-8 | 2-8 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Power Interest Grid, Strategy per Stakeholder | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | SensemakingDecisionRationale | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentPlanning | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |