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 Nominal Group Technique |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |  Facilitation Dot Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | 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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 60-120 min | 1-3 h | 5-15 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 5-12 | 5-30 | 3-20 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization |