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 Expectation Mapping |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Facilitation Alignment 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 roles, interfaces, or projects fail because of differing expectations, Expectation Mapping surfaces these differences. It shows what each side takes for granted and where the pictures diverge. | 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 several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 45-90 min | 45–90 min | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 3-12 | 3-10 | 4-12 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation |