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 Affinity Diagramming |  Product Discovery Kano Model |  Operations Causal Factor Analysis |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | When features need to be distinguished by their effect on satisfaction, it makes expectations and surprises comparable. It separates basic needs, performance contribution, and delight. | For an event with a complicated course, the method breaks down the contributing factors along the timeline. It shows how conditions, decisions, and reactions together produce a course of events. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 45–90 min | 1-2 Tage | 2-6 h | 30–60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 10-50 | 3-10 | 4-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Kano Matrix, Feature Classes, Priority Themes | Event Timeline, Causal Factor Chart, Cause List, Corrective Actions | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | SatisfactionPrioritizationCustomer | CausalityIncidentRoot causeTimeline | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop |