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 Dot Voting |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Facilitation Nominal Group Technique |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 workshop has produced too many options and the group needs to condense quickly, dot voting makes preferences visible in a short time. It bundles individual votes into a solid signal for the next selection. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 5-15 min | 45–90 min | 60-120 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 3-20 | 3-10 | 5-12 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion |