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 |  Facilitation Dot Voting |  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 a workshop has produced too many options and the group needs to condense quickly, dot voting makes preferences visible in a short time. It bundles individual votes into a solid signal for the next selection. | 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 | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 5-15 min | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 3-20 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
