  In this paper, we experimentally compare major approval-based
  multiwinner voting rules. To this end, we define a measure of
  similarity between two equal-sized committees subject to a given
  election. Using synthetic elections coming from several
  distributions, we analyze how similar are the committees provided by
  prominent voting rules. Our results can be visualized as ``maps of
  voting rules'', which provide a counterpoint to a purely axiomatic
  classification of voting rules.
  The strength of our proposed method is its independence from preimposed
classifications (such as the satisfaction of concrete axioms),
  and that it indeed offers a much finer distinction than
  the current state of axiomatic analysis.
