In the field of architecture, codesign has been explored through various methodologies and tools, with the latter still in their nascent stages regarding their ability to effectively communicate with users, potentially leading to less inclusive processes. In this context, the use of full-scale models emerges as an alternative codesign tool due to its capacity to provide information, engage users, and encourage mutual learning. This research delves into this topic, contrasting full-scale models with two traditional participatory tools, namely architectural visualisations and small-scale models. Two design processes were experimented with, applying action research as a methodology with a primarily qualitative focus. Through maps, photographic documentation, and surveys, the interactions experienced by users with the three tools were graphically represented. This information was then compared using an evaluation table, which demonstrated the advantages of each tool that mitigate their respective limitations. For example, architectural visualisations excel in rapid information transmission, small-scale models offer flexibility, and full-scale models enhance inclusivity. This table can serve as a guide for planning other codesign processes.