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 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 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 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 | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 45-90 min | 45–90 min | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 3-12 | 3-10 | 5-30 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment |