View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Facilitation Mind Mapping |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Facilitation 1-2-4-All |  Innovation Brainstorming |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a topic is still unclear and too many thoughts surface at once, Mind Mapping creates an open surface for ordering them. It makes connections, subtopics, and starting points visible without fixing them too early. | 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 many people in a group too rarely get to speak, 1-2-4-All distributes thinking time more fairly. The format builds participation step by step and makes quiet or still-unformed thoughts usable faster. | When a team faces an open question with many obvious directions, the method first creates breadth instead of premature commitment. It separates idea flow from evaluation and makes lines of thought visible, creating a pool for selection and further development. |
Complexitysame | Low | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 15-45 min | 30–60 min | 10-20 min | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-10 | 4-8 | 4-100+ | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Mind Map, Topic Clusters, Open Questions | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Idea List, Shared Insights, Emergent Themes | Idea pool, Theme clusters, Shortlist |
Tagsno overlap | BrainstormingIdeasMappingStructureFacilitation | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | FacilitationInclusionIdeation | BrainstormingIdeationCreativityWorkshopDivergence |