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 Responsibility Poker |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 it stays unclear who carries responsibility and who only contributes, Responsibility Poker makes the distribution of responsibility explicit. It sharpens the boundaries between weighing in, deciding, and bearing consequences. | 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 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 | Medium | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 45-90 min | 30–60 min | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 3-10 | 4-8 | 5-30 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment |