methodatlas
Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Criterion
Paper illustration of two people facing each other, speech bubbles and an open interview notebook.
UX Research
User Interviews
Independent contributions form an ordered group priority list.
Facilitation
Nominal Group Technique
Affinity Diagramming
UX Research
Affinity Diagramming
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 loud voices could dominate a round, Nominal Group Technique protects individual thinking time from group effects. It collects ideas separately first and only then enables shared weighting.When research notes, feedback, or observations sit unconnected side by side, affinity diagramming sorts the raw material into solid themes. Many individual points turn into patterns that make decisions and opportunities clearer.
Complexitydifferent
LowMediumLow
Timedifferent
30–60 min per interview60-120 min45–90 min
Participantsdifferent
1 participant per interview5-123-10
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Interview Notes, Themes, Insight SummaryRanked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group PriorityTheme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas
Tagsno overlap
QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause
Add more methods

Often compared together

Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.

Paper illustration of shared options, independently placed voting dots, and a highlighted shortlist.
Facilitation
Dot Voting
Paper illustration for 1-2-4-All.
Facilitation
1-2-4-All
Empathy Mapping
UX Research
Empathy Mapping