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 Six Thinking Hats |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Decision Making Constraint Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 topic gets stuck too quickly in the same thinking mode, Six Thinking Hats deliberately separates the perspectives. This means facts, risks, creativity, and emotional signals get worked through one after another instead of mixed together. | 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 an initiative stalls, the limit often lies not in the idea but in hard or soft boundary conditions. Constraint Analysis separates these limits and shows which of them can actually be shaped. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 45-90 min | 45–90 min | 30-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 4-12 | 3-10 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Perspective Notes, Decision Inputs, Action Items | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Constraint List, Hard/Soft Classification, Option Impact Notes, Decision Boundaries |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | FacilitationOptionsDecision | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | ConstraintsDecisionPlanningOptions |