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 Decision Tree |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |  Facilitation Six Thinking Hats |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | For decisions with follow-on paths and dependencies, a linear comparison is often not enough. A Decision Tree shows how options branch under conditions and which consequences hang on each branch. | 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. | When a topic gets stuck too quickly in the same thinking mode, Six Thinking Hats deliberately separates the perspectives. This means facts, risks, creativity, and emotional signals get worked through one after another instead of mixed together. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 30-90 min | 1-3 h | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 1-6 | 5-30 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Decision Tree, Option Map, Assumption List | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Perspective Notes, Decision Inputs, Action Items |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | DecisionTreeOptions | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | FacilitationOptionsDecision |