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 User Interviews |  Facilitation Expectation Mapping |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When teams derive needs only from assumptions and real motives are missing, user interviews give direct access to behavior and meaning. Conversations from the target group's everyday life make patterns, tensions, and open questions solidly visible. | When roles, interfaces, or projects fail because of differing expectations, Expectation Mapping surfaces these differences. It shows what each side takes for granted and where the pictures diverge. | 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 | Low | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 45-90 min | 30–60 min | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 3-12 | 4-8 | 5-30 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment |