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 Stakeholder Mapping |  Facilitation Nominal Group Technique |  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 an initiative depends on many people, interests, and power dynamics, Stakeholder Mapping systematically orders the environment. It shows who influences, who is affected, and where relationship management or safeguarding matters first. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 60–90 min | 60-120 min | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 2-8 | 5-12 | 5-30 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment |