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 Personas |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 target groups stay too vague and teams talk about the same people differently, personas create a shared, solid picture of usage. Condensed profiles make needs, contexts, and differences tangible enough for decisions. | 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 several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 15-45 min | 1-3 Tage | 60–90 min | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 1-10 | Internes Team | 2-8 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Mind Map, Topic Clusters, Open Questions | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions |
Tagsno overlap | BrainstormingIdeasMappingStructureFacilitation | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation |