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 Personas |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 statements, evidence, and counterarguments get mixed up, a debate quickly loses its structure. Argument Mapping breaks a thesis down into its reasoning and makes visible what it really rests on. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 1-3 h | 1-2 h | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 1-8 | 4-12 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | SensemakingDecisionRationale | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |