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 Decision Jam |  Growth A/B Testing |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 a decision is stuck, Decision Jam loosens the knot through structured separation of problem, idea, and selection. The format creates movement without jumping prematurely at the first seemingly elegant answer. | When two variants compete, discussions quickly decide by taste rather than effect. A/B Testing checks behavior under controlled conditions and separates real improvement from chance or expectation effects. | 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 | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 60-90 min | 1-4 Wochen | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 4-10 | 1-6 | 5-30 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Problem Cluster, Prioritized Challenge, Experiment | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | FacilitationDecisionProblem solvingWorkshop | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment |