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 |  Product Discovery Opportunity Interview |  Product Discovery Opportunity Scoring |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | When opportunities are still hidden behind signals of need, it structures conversations around needs and obstacles. It looks for patterns that lead to new product opportunities. | When opportunities need ranking by their effect, it makes importance and satisfaction directly comparable. It separates problem, assumption, solution, and evidence. The result is captured as an opportunity-score table and top outcomes. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45–90 min | 1-2 Tage | 30-60 min je Interview | 60-120 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 10-50 | 5-12 Interviews | 3-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Kano Matrix, Feature Classes, Priority Themes | Interview Notes, Opportunity Themes, Customer Quotes | Opportunity Score Table, Top Outcomes |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | SatisfactionPrioritizationCustomer | DiscoveryInterviewsOpportunityCustomer | PrioritizationDiscoveryOutcomesNeeds |