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 |  Systems Thinking Future Reality Tree |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Systems Thinking Iceberg Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | A Future Reality Tree shows how desired actions are meant to lead to a better system state. The method checks whether a path of change holds together logically before time flows into implementation. | 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. | The Iceberg Model separates visible events from patterns, structures, and mental models. This turns a single observation into a deeper understanding of why a problem keeps recurring. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | High | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 2-4 h | 45–90 min | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 3-8 | 3-10 | 2-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Future Reality Tree, Negative Branches, Assumption List, Improved Injections | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Iceberg Worksheet, Pattern Notes, Intervention Ideas |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | Theory of ConstraintsSystems thinkingChange | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | Systems thinkingRoot causePatterns |